Confessions of a Cinephile

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (2012)

2012-02-10T05:17:00.000-08:00

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu is a ratherbrilliant bait and switch. The promos & marketing promise one movie and themakers deliver another. Personally, I would take the other any day over theexpected one. However, going by the reactions of the people in the hall, Isuspect that this is a film that will be enjoyed more by the people dragged towatch this movie than the people dragging them. Although it looks like a What HappensIn Vegas-esque predictable romantic comedy, it isn’t. It is formulaic, sure. Butit isn’t the formula you expect, and that is where the film works.

A night in Vegas later, uptightarchitect Rahul (Imran Khan) wakes up to a new bride, Riana (Kareena Kapoor)thanks to an Elvis Chapel and lots of booze. She’s a carefree hairstylist. He’sa neat freak, depressed wreck with extremely controlling, overbearing parents (BomanIrani and Ratna Pathak Shah). They apply for annulment immediately and overtheir two week marriage, they grow from strangers to friends and maybe,something more.

The humour in EMAET is plentifuland thankfully, the promos save the best moments for the cinema hall. There isa hilarious bathroom sex scene (well, as close to sex as Bollywood can get), anadorable re-imagining of “Koi Mil Gaya” from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, some great granny humour and several solidone liners. The good thing about the humour is that the writers don’t try tomake every scene laugh out loud funny. They stay true to the characters andprovide enough guffaws and giggles as well.

Beyond humour, the film benefitsfrom more nuance in the characterisation than is expected from the routine romcom fares. Imran Khan handles the transformation of Rahul from uptight to easyremarkably well. From the expressions to the body language, he gets most thingsright. Kareena Kapoor’s Riana is something of an urban avatar of Geet from Jab WeMet. However, they are different in small but important ways and Kapoor does asolid job throughout. It’s great to see her do something more than just playdamsel in distress for Salman or SRK.

However, the true stars of thefilm are Ayesha Devitre and Shakun Batra. The writing is fresh and barring afew awkward scenes, the execution is clean and highly competent. The writing hasthe urban authenticity of Wake Up Sid and a quirky touch that is new (and verywelcome) to mainstream Bollywood. Except for Rahul’s caricatured parents, thecharacters and their relationships are easy to identify with and theirconversations are straight out of life. Although the second half has too manysongs, the runtime is economic and pacing perfect.

Overall, EMAET is one part laughout loud funny, one part disarmingly, achingly sweet and a whole lot of fun. Althoughthe first half has all the trappings of formulaic romance, the second halfquietly & successfully drives the film to a more mature, slice of lifecomedy. It is that rare treat that has something for everyone: from hipsters tohopeless romantics; from adolescents to aunty-jis.

Rating: 4/5

P.S.: On a side, mostly unrelated note, are the 20s the new teens as far as the romantic comedy are concerned?

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

2012-01-30T22:46:00.000-08:00

There is a major spoiler in the penultimate paragraph of this review. It has been sufficiently marked. Ifyou haven’t seen the original or read the book, then avoid.

As I saw Fincher’s take on TheGirl With The Dragon Tattoo, I was constantly reminded of another Swedish filmthat got a Hollywood remake: Let The Right OneIn. While its remake (titled Let Me In) was structurally similar to theoriginal, it set itself apart by stressing on different emotions and themes,without compromising on elements that made the original iconic. Consequently,both were terrific films worthy of being appreciated on their own. Unfortunately,the remake of TGWTDT, while technically impressive, brings very little that isnew to the table apart from a few cosmetic changes.

For the plot, read my review of the original. The opening credits are phenomenal. Visually and aurally, they are quite atreat and innovative in conveying the themes of the film. Christopher Plummer is also perfectlycast as Henrik Vanger. The three biggest assets of the film are thecinematography and the background score. Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor providea haunting background score that despite its electronic base has deeply rootedin classic noir and Hitchcockian mysteries. Their cover of the Immigrant Songis very good. The cinematography is effective in creating the sense of dread,danger and melancholia. Rooney Mara gives a phenomenal performance, undoubtedly.However, the screenplay simplifies her character in key aspects that robs herperformance of the nuance and subtleties that Noomi Rapace brought to LisbethSalander.

Moreover, there is a distinctlack of imagination in the remake that is alarming. The setting remains thesame. The execution of the scenes is similar. It’s all very by the numbers. Thefew changes that are made actually make it pale in comparison to the original.And although Daniel Craig is a better actor than Michael Nyqvist, what is withthe English accent? Everyone around him (including Rooney Mara) has an exotic (Swedishsounding) accent. But he doesn't. His accent is distracting, out of place andtempts me greatly to dismiss his performance as just, plain lazy.

Spoiler Alert

The worst decision the film makes is in casting Stellan Skarsgard as MartinVanger. This isn’t because he is a bad actor, it’s because he is too popular aface. As the most recognizable Swedish actor in the world since Ingrid Bergmanand Max von Sydow, one knows his character is likely to play a “significant”role, which robs the film of the element of surprise. The great thing about PeterHaber was that he blended in with the rest of the family. Therefore, oneexpected him to be no more or less significant than the rest of the lot. Unfortunately,Skarsgard is a bad choice for the role. It would’ve been interesting had theybrought someone new/relatively unknown.

Spoiler Ends

Ultimately, the most unfortunatething about the remake is that there is very little Fincher brings to the tablein terms of vision. Barring a few clever touches, it's almost as if he directed the film on autopilot. In his repertoire, this is Fincher’s weakest film since Panic Room. For me, the film’s greatestfailing is that its inability to meet its maker’s self imposed standards. Whilesomeone who hasn’t seen the original will enjoy it, others who have will findlittle of interest in this remake. And between the two films, I stronglysuggest you see the Swedish version.

Rating: 3/5

Agneepath (2012)

2012-01-26T06:59:00.000-08:00

One of the ways I measure the strength of a masala movie is in the amount joy I derive in watching the villains fall. By that standard, Agneepath is a phenomenal film. It brings not one, but two detestable villains to screen and it is a delight to watch them both meet their downfall at the hands of the iconic Vijay Dinanath Chauhan. A remake of a remake of a remake, like a game of chinese whispers, the story of Agneepath bears little resemblance to Brian De Palma's Scarface which originally inspired it. In the hands of Karan Malhotra, it undergoes a formidable transformation resulting in a final product that is gutsy, intelligent and bold.

For standing up against a land grabbing feudal lord, Kancha Cheena (Sanjay Dutt), Vijay's father is framed and brutally executed for a horrific crime he didn't commit. Driven out of their home in Mandva, his mother (Zarina Wahab), sister and he find shelter in the slums of Mumbai where he comes under the tutelage of sleazy child trafficker and drug lord Rauf Lala (Rishi Kapoor). Fifteen years later, as Rauf Lala and Kancha Cheena are locked in a gang war, Vijay quietly awaits his time for revenge. When the chips are finally set in place, he puts his plan in motion to exact a bloody revenge from Kancha.

Agneepath is skillfully executed by Karan Malhotra. He demonstrates a solid eye for detail in scene construction and tells the story with remarkable gusto and conviction. He focuses on the raw emotions to pack a visceral punch in several key scenes. The death of Dinanath Chauhan, the songs Shah Ka Rutba and Deva Shri Ganesha are particularly masterfully executed. His characters are well drawn, complex and rich. He effectively pays homage to the original at key points. However, he does well to steer clear from imitating it. The production design and cinematography are breathtaking. From the slums of Mumbai and their celebrations to the hellish remains of Mandva, each frame is saturated with colours and is alternately & equally, gorgeous and haunting. Of course, given the time setting, there are several anachronisms. But it's easy to overlook them. Ajay-Atul's score may not be a chartbuster but it fits the situations and the mood of the film very well.

The film also benefits from a strong ensemble. The casting is perfect. Sanjay Dutt is menacing as Kancha Cheena. Hrithik brings a youthful ferocity to his take on Vijay Dinanath Chauhan. This is easily his strongest performance since Lakshya. Priyanka Chopra finally returns to form as the lovable Kaali. Om Puri is perfect as Gaitonde. The supporting cast also consistently delivers competent performances. However, the true stud of the film is Rishi Kapoor. As Rauf Lala, Rishi Kapoor delivers a fearless performance, outshines everybody and emerges as a force to be reckoned with. It is heartening to see the veteran actor grow and experiment in films like this and Do Dooni Chaar at his age.

Unfortunately, the film is not without its flaws. Chetan Pandit's Dinanath Chauhan is nowhere nearly as effective as Alok Nath's. While the first half of the film is perfect, the second half is significantly weaker. The pace slackens especially after the introduction of Shiksha, Vijay's sister, with a barrage of songs. The over extended, unrealistic climax and the use of tacky special effects don't help things. Also, Malhotra recklessly drives the film into unnecessary melodrama in these portions resulting in emotional overkill.

Overall, Agneepath is a well executed, powerful film for the most part. It is a great throwback at the grand masala movies we grew up on like Khuda Gawah, Hum, Saudagar and Tezaab. At the same time, Malhotra reinvents the formulas of yore for a modern audience and succeeds unconditionally until the final hour. Nevertheless, Agneepath offers a well plotted, violent, gripping yarn of vengeance that will most probably feature in my year's list of best Hindi films.

Rating: 4/5

Don 2 (2011)

2011-12-24T10:47:00.001-08:00

Farhan Akhtar is not only an interesting storyteller, he is a technically proficient one too. In each of his directorial ventures, he has brought something new to Hindi cinema. In Dil Chahta Hai, he brought modern sync-sound technology to the medium. In Lakshya, he went to ridiculously high altitudes with a crane to shoot his film. Don, undoubtedly the least of his works, still showcased a slickness in its production that few films at the time, if any, could rival. Now, with Don 2, he returns to the director's chair after a hiatus. Technically, it is unarguably his finest production to date. The photography, the production design, the action are all stunning. But in terms of substantive content, it's good, not great.

After conquering Asian drug market, Don (SRK) has set his eyes on conquering Europe. But he faces stiff competition with the drug cartels already operating there. Joined by his former arch-nemesis (Boman Irani) and a rag tag team including a savvy hacker (Kunnal Kapoor), a bombshell beauty (Lara Dutta) and a bunch of goons, Don plans the ultimate heist, which could not only allow him to get very, very rich but also help him eliminate his competitors.

What sets Don 2 apart is in ways, its greatest strength but also its greatest weakness. Everyone is going gaga over how the film is the closest we have come to a slick Hollywood production. Some have lauded Akhtar for that, others have thrown brickbats at him. I choose to applaud him for it, especially for doing a bang up job of integrating Hollywood suavity with 70s Bollywood kitsch. However, I don't think that's what really sets Don 2 apart. What distinguishes it, even from the Oceans and Mission Impossible series(es) which most critics seem hell bent on comparing it too, is its protagonist. Unlike Ocean and his 11, Don isn't an anti-hero. He is a villain, plain and simple. He is a narcissistic, mean spirited, evil bastard out to take over the world. He doesn't have any redeeming qualities. He has no moral compass or anything that remotely resembles a conscience. He isn't Danny Ocean. He's Terry Benedict. It is inordinately more difficult to weave a story around a character like that. Yet, Akhtar does and largely, succeeds thanks to a well plotted, mostlyconsistent script (a rarity in Bollywood thrillers), some truly epic dialogues and a strong central performance by Shah Rukh Khan. The role is tailor made for SRK and he does it full justice.

However, no matter how hard Akhtar may try, those very qualities also makes it difficult for the audience to root for Don, much less love him. Even all the world's cool cannot compensate for a black heart. After Europe and Asia, Don could take over the world in Don 3, but that won't make him any more endearing (or interesting) to an audience. Because of this, the appeal of Don, as a character and as a series, is limited. Akhtar truncates the appeal also by allowing the film to remain a one man show. One can't help but wonder: for a drug kingpin who controls the Asian market, where is Don's entourage? The lone ranger act is unconvincing. The other characters are mere stick figures brought in for support. Had Akhtar built a true ensemble playing off each others' strengths, the film would have been a lot more fun.

Also,the length doesn't help things . For a film with just one song, Don 2 has no business clocking in at 145 minutes. The film is stretched to an exasperating point, particularly in the last half hour. This, along with the lack of an ensemble, robs the narrative of its energy at several points. The climax is a letdown as a film ends with a thud instead of a bang. The action work, though slick, is very been there seen that. They lack imagination and feel like a Rolex watch perfectly duplicated in a cheap Chinese factory. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy give one of their worst performances ever.

Perhaps I have been too critical of the film. Its virtues are numerous. Its vices are not for lack of trying. I had a genuinely good time for the most part. It is definitely recommended as a one time watch and the only big budget film this year that actually delivered on many of its promises. Also, a cameo by a certain someone (ahem ahem) is rather cleverly used. In many ways, it is indicative of how far we have come. In others, it shows how much farther we can go.

Rating: 3/5

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)

2011-12-16T16:45:00.000-08:00

The Mission Impossible series hasbeen a mixed bag at best. The first was a hyper convoluted and verbose; thesecond simplified the plot and delivered high octane thrills; the third wassappy and, in terms of plot, all foreplay & no climax. So, despite theuneven graph of the series, the makers are back with a fourth. The film marksthe live action feature debut of Brad Bird, who has previously helmed two Pixaranimation classics, The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Heavily promoted in India,particularly with the presence of Anil Kapoor, the paid preview was packed tothe brim.

The plot: Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise)and his crew (Simon Pegg & Paula Patton) are on the run after a mission iscompromised and the Kremlin is destroyed. The US and Russia are on the brink ofwar as a consequence and without any resources, support or back up, Ethan andhis team must prove their innocence and save the world from nuclear holocaust.As they jet set around the world, accompanied by an analyst with a dark past(Jeremy Renner), time is running out.

The first thing you notice in themovie is just how much Tom Cruise has aged. My god, he looks old! You almostwant to recommend Olay to him. Nevertheless, he more than makes up for itthrough his performance. As he daringly jumps off the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, races his carthrough a sandstorm and kicks some serious ass, it’s easy to look past the agefactor and appreciate the physicality of his performance. He is the foundationof the series, and in that capacity, he is still strong.

As for the film, it is broadlydivided into three acts. The first two acts (set in Moscowand Dubairespectively) border on brilliance. They are fast, funny and have some highlyinnovative action set pieces. The action work is more old school, relying on death defying stunts rather than just computer generated imagery. Also, the dig at the Iron Curtain is particularlyclever. While the technical wizardry may be a little hard to stomach at places,the rapid pacing and the sense of fun that Brad Bird brings to the enterprise helpit go down smoothly enough. The sense of thrill and adventure is morepronounced here than in any of the previous films. The other major strength ofit is the humour. Simon Pegg gets his moment to shine and he really brings thehouse down in several places. Jeremy Renner proves himself to be a competent futurereplacement for Tom Cruise.

Unfortunately, the third act,where the action shifts to Mumbai, is dull, overlong and clunky. The climaxpales rather evidently in comparison to the rest of the film. Anil Kapoor has asmall role as a sleazy billionaire and those expecting a classy affair are goingto be disappointed. Also, being from Mumbai, it is easy to see the little flawsin the production design; particularly, the use of Southern languages on noticeboards in all places. Also, Michael Nyquist’s villainous Kurt Hendricks isnever fleshed out well enough to make a lasting impression.

Nevertheless, by the time you realizethis, you care little and are willing to forgive the film for most of thesethings. Overall, this is easily the best entry in the series edging out thesecond film which was, in my opinion, the previous best. It is quick, nimbleand loaded to the brim with great action. So sit back, enjoy the mission.

Ladies vs. Ricky Bahl (2011)

2011-12-10T09:51:00.001-08:00

Ladies vs. Ricky Bahl is adisappointing fare for a number of reasons. First, the pacing is sluggish. Ithas a simple premise. Three women hire another to con the man that conned them.Things complicate when the con woman and the con man fall in love. This waferthin premise is stretched unnecessarily over 140 minutes. The film is overlongby at least half hour. Songs are thrown in at random and seem forced,particularly the first one which appears within three minutes of the film’sopening. Their forgettable tunes don’t help things much.

The plotting only makes thingsworse. Unlike the clean, uncomplicated storytelling that we saw in Band, Baaja Baaraat, the film’s graph iserratic and the result is a mess. Ifthe first half takes too long to set up the premise, the second half ishandicapped by some ridiculous, plotting. The con game is silly, unbelievableand laborious. Beyond the loud mouthed Dimple, there is little by way ofhumour. The writing is stale. The love story between Ricky (Ranveer Singh) andIshika (Anushka Sharma) is extremely poorly developed. They have chemistry, undoubtedlyso. But the director doesn’t seem to know what to do with it.

Of course, the proceedings aremade bearable by the bubbly vivaciousness of Anushka Sharma and the chemistryshe shares with co-star Ranveer Singh. They do their best with the lackluster materialthat they’re given to work with. Sharma lights up the screen and brings life tothe otherwise dull proceedings. She also looks irresistible. What isdisappointing though is that Ranveer Singh is stripped of the rugged, mofussil charmthat made him so endearing in his maiden film. Too quickly, he has beenpackaged into a slick, suave product ready to be marketed. Typical, given thatit is Yash Raj Films. But sad nevertheless. The supporting performances aresolid. Particularly noteworthy is the debut of Parineeti Chopra who brings thehouse down in places with her loud mouthed, spoilt Delhi girl act.

On the whole, Ladies vs. RickyBahl lacks many of the things that made Band Baaja Baaraat so popular: freshwriting, well fleshed out characters, clean storytelling, great music. It is a surprisinglylifeless enterprise. A sizable disappointment, this one’s strictly to be seenwith low expectations, especially in terms of logic.

Rating: 2/5

Ra.One (2011)

2011-10-26T03:45:00.000-07:00

The superhero genre in India is still very much in a nascent phase, struggling to find firm ground. In ways, it is similar to the phase Hollywood went through from the mid-1980s to 90s as it concerned itself more with visual spectacle than telling engaging stories. In films like Tron (1982), the story and screenplay took a backseat to pushing the boundaries of computer generated visuals. In that sense, Ra.One is visually impressive. It is bigger and better than than the films that preceded it (Krrish, Robot). However, in terms of storytelling, it demonstrates how far we have yet to go.

Shekhar Subramaniam (SRK) is a nerdy computer gaming programmer married to the beautiful Sonia (Kareena Kapoor). They have a preteen son Prateek (Armaan Verma) who is embarrassed by his bumbling, boring father. To impress his son, he creatss a video game where the villain is more powerful than the hero. The game: Ra.One. However, his company, Barron Industries, is developing technology to give physical, tangible manifestation to data transferred electronically. With the powerful artifical intelligence created for Ra.One, a cataclysmic system crash occurs when Prateek leaves the test version mid way through the game bringing the fearsome villain from the virtual world to the physical world to destroy Prateek. The family's only hope is Ra.One's virtual nemesis, the good but weaker G.One (SRK).

First, the positives. Visually, the film is good. While it is visibly constrained by a budget, the visual effects are excellent in several places. The action sequences make up for what they lack in novelty & originality with intensity & brisk pacing. Of these, the pre-climactic train sequence stands out the most. Despite its clumsy finish, the effects are convincing and the action is thrilling. Another great asset here is Vishal-Shekhar's music which is a deft mix of dark, melancholic overtures and chic retro re-imaginations. Their work is truly world class and brings tremendous energy to the proceedings. Arjun Rampal makes for a truly fearsome Ra.One. Although he gets barely 30 minutes of screen time, he makes a strong impression with his gaunt, menacing look and the ferocious physicality of his performance. Armaan Verma is endearing as Prateek and emotes very well throughout. SRK is SRK, which is a positive in my books.

Unfortunately, the film isn't without its flaws, and they are several. The initial 45 minutes range from bland to annoying. The film takes too long to set up its premise. SRK has gone overboard in hedging his bets. The cameo by Priyanka Chopra and Sanjay Dutt is just unnecessary and silly. PC's deliberate blonde act borders on the agonising. The product placement is thankfully though almost as subtle as it is numerous.

In terms of writing, Shekhar Subramanian as a character makes little sense. One minute he is spewing deep, philosophical life lessons and the next he is impersonating Michael Jackson to look cool and bad ass for his son. The father son relationship, as crucial to the story as Peter Parker's relationship with Uncle Ben was to Spiderman, is sacrificed on the mantle of the syrupy and artificial. While the picturisation of the song 'Dildaara' does salvage it considerably in the second half, its too late by then. Kareena Kapoor looks fantastic and emotes well. But her character makes even lesser sense than Shekhar. She's a mother who is also writing a thesis on Hindi expletives from a feminist perspective. I mean, seriously. It sounds ridiculous even to say it out loud. Would it have killed the writers to make her character just a little more credible?

The origins story (of Ra.One moving from the virtual world to the real world) is not entirely convincing although one may overlook that. After all, it is a fantasy film. But there is a distinct lack of originality that pervades the film throughout. While one cannot dismiss the film as a rip off, it borrows elements from other movies like Iron Man, Terminator, Spiderman etc. It's almost as if SRK and group walked onto the sets of American studios and picked up various designs at random and decided to put them together. The non-appearance of Arjun Rampal until midway through the second half also is a letdown.

Ultimately, Ra.One is like a passable chocolate pie. The cocoa is rich enough; the pastry old, but edible. However, instead of sugar, you have saccharine artificially sweetening things almost to the point of making it unpalatable. Despite having the trappings of greatness, the film is bogged down by artificial sentimentality, painful cliches and unnecessary gimmickry. Nevertheless, it must be lauded for the effort put in. There will be a great Bollywood superhero movie someday. Of that, I am sure. Unfortunately, this ain't it. However, with the recent severe drought of entertainment, it certainly is something of a relief, howsoever limited. Technically also, it raises the bar considerably. For that, despite its flaws I am inclined to recommend it with caution.

Rating: 2.5/5

Mujhse Fraaandship Karoge (2011)

2011-10-17T02:11:00.000-07:00

When a Hindi film with 5 songs feelsstretched despite clocking under 120 minutes, you know it’s in trouble. MujhseFraaandship Karoge relies on a classic premise of mistaken identities. A comedyof errors, Vishal (Saqib Saleem) pretends to be rockstar Rahul (Nishant Dahiya)on Facebook in order to woo Malvika (Tara D’Souza). What he doesn’t know is thatPreity (Saba Azad) is also using Malvika’s Facebook account to get Rohit (whichis really Vishal). Just one more thing: Vishal and Preity hate each other. It’sa simple enough premise. The problem is that the film quickly runs out of plot.Ideally, such a film could be easily wrapped up in less than 100 minutes, evenwith songs. However, to make it a full length Hindi feature, the directorstretches the film beyond breaking point making the proceedings almost too agonizingto endure.

Also, the script doesn’t helpthings. The wafer thin plot is embellished with cardboard characters. Insteadof a development graph or even remotely realistic teens, you find characters that oscillatebetween loving and hating each other randomly at the whims and fancies of thewriter. They seemed to have walked straight out of a bad Hillary Duff/LindsayLohan chick flick. The jokes and one liners draw only intermittent laughs. LikeVishal, the writers are also delusional about the quality of their humour. Theconflict between the two leads in the first half is screechy, loud and veryforced. The plotting is clunky and laboured despite steadfastly following formula.The editor and the director are to blame for that. Also, you are constantlyleft wondering: Do either Vishal or Preity realize just how creepy they are? Where are their parents? Where are the teachers? Why do theseguys talk like that? Do they even attend classes? And, what is with the productplacement? Has Samsung (and not Y-Films) produced this picture? As these andseveral other questions claw at your brain, the film becomes increasingly insufferable.

Having said this, the film doeshave a few redeeming factors. The first is Raghu Dixit’s music which isyouthful, fresh and zesty unlike the film and its characters. From theIrish-influences in ‘Uh oh uh oh’ and the cool, urban ‘Baatein Shuru’ to thetraditional Sufi flavours of ‘Har Saans Mein’, his tunes light up the screenand go a long way in making the film as a whole bearable! The second is SabaAzad and Saqib Saleem. Both these actors have tremendous screen presence and somegreat chemistry together. In fact, when the script doesn’t demand that they screechat each other, they actually manage to bring some depth and life into theircharacters, almost making them endearing. Unfortunately, by then, it’s far toolate to salvage the ship, let alone save it.

For all these reasons, I thinkMFK is a waste of your time and the effort of some seriously talented people. Y-Filmshas gone the Hollywood studio way; choosing to make generic, silly, substandardteen films, featuring over-aged actors desperately trying to pass off as teens,from a strict, market perspective rather than intelligent or <gasp> realisticones. It's a pity, really. Do yourself a favour: buy and listen to the soundtrack instead.

Rating: 2/5

Speedy Singhs (2011)

2011-09-23T04:13:00.000-07:00

The problem with Speedy Singhs is that it revels in itsmediocrity It does not, even for a single moment, bother trying to rise aboveit. Its narrative is flat. The sports sequences look choreographed and lackenergy. It’s an uninspiring sports taleand a very routine cultural comedy. It tells us little about the Sikh/Indian community in Canada and instead chooses to get caught up in painful cliches. The attempts to shoehorn Bollywood elementsare particularly cringe-inducing. The song with the CGI ice rink with the Taj Mahal is justwrong. And why are they listening to the finals telecast on the radio when theyhave huge TV screens at home? The characters are thinner than stick figures andthe performances are uniformly wooden. Virmani looks good but could really use acting lessons. Camille Belle is too busy looking pretty to bother expressing. RobLowe and Russell Peters are wasted. Anupam Kher plays a role he has done athousand times before.

So my recommendation is as follows:

If you want a cross culturalsports comedy, rent Bend It Like Beckham instead,

If you want an ice hockey movie,watch Miracle or even The Mighty Ducks.

If you want a rousing sportsmovie, watch Remember the Titans.

If you want to watch an underdogstory, go see Chak De India one moretime.

But avoid this one. Seriously. Films like these give formula a bad name.

Rating: 1.5/5

Mausam (2011)

2011-09-23T03:45:00.000-07:00

Mausam is about two lovers set over a period of ten years. Harinder“Harry” Singh (Shahid Kapoor) and Aayat Rasool (Sonam Kapoor) meet as teenagersin Mallukot, Punjab in November 1992. She hasrun away from the violence in Kashmir. Forhim, it is love at first sight. They court each other for a while and then, onefine day, he finds her house locked and gone from his life. 7 years later, inApril 1999, they meet in Scotland.He’s now an Air Force pilot and she’s training to become a ballerina. Theyrediscover their love for each other and make promises of marriage.Unfortunately, fate has other plans. As national and global events determine thecourse of their lives, they fight against all odds to be reunited once again.

Expectations can be a bitch. And Mausam is a perfect example of that. Iexpected a lot from the film and tried really, really hard to like it. Quiteunfortunately though, the film is a mess, and a big one at that. The story oflovers torn apart by circumstances had a lot of potential. A premise like this hasdelivered some of the greatest romances of all time including Casablanca,Kabhie Kabhi, The English Patient, Veer Zaara and others. Mausamgets quite a few things right. It has a very likable leading pair with goodchemistry and some earnest supporting performances. The photography by BinodPradhan is nothing short of exquisite. He captures not only the beautifullocales of Punjab, Scotlandand Switzerlandwell but also manages to bring an emotional intensity through his camerawork inseveral key moments. The film features some exceptional music with Pritam playingagainst type and coming up with a great mix of sufi and folk music. IrshadKamil’s poetry is emotionally mesmerizing. At a time when lyrics are gettingincreasingly cheap in the name of “hip, youthful and urban”, his lyrics hauntyou with their poignancy and depth.

However, all of the talent in theworld cannot make up for a weak story and a bad script. The film squanders all itsmerits with an extremely weak, uneven and choppy screenplay. There are abruptshifts in tone, continuity issues and inexplicable disappearances ofcharacters. Although Pankaj Kapur’s heart is in the right place, his writingskills need a lot of work. The story is unconvincing and the separation of thetwo lovers seems forced in several places, particularly in the post-intervalportions. It’s difficult to feel anything for the characters despite all theirsighing and crying (and there is a lot of that). With a runtime of 3 hours, thefilm is excessively long by a good 45 minutes. There just isn’t enough plot tojustify the bloated runtime. The linear narrative also makes the story far toopredictable. The plot twists can be seen from miles away. The excessive lengthrobs the narrative of any life or joy. Too much time is spent on mundanedetails and too little on character development. By the end, enduring the filmis actually agonizing. The climax, set in Ahmedabad in 2002, is actuallytasteless, joyless and bland. All in all, Mausam aims for epic romance, and fails rather epically at it. It is, in my opinion, one of the biggest disappointments this year.

Rating: 2/5

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)

2011-09-17T08:16:00.000-07:00

Crazy, Stupid, Love is basicallyfour love stories rolled into one. First, there’s an old couple is goingthrough a marital crisis (Julianne Moore and Steve Carell). Then we have a 17year old girl falling for a much older man, a 13 year old falling for that 17year old and a serial womanizer (Ryan Gosling) meeting a girl who changes hislife (Emma Stone).

It overcomes the familiarity of its plot with a few smartsurprises in the second half that are likely to catch most of the audience offguard. It also benefits greatly from a refreshing mix of laugh out loud funnyhumour and an emotional earnestness that makes its characters endearing. The interestingensemble delivers some fine performances. It is great to see Julianne Moore ina role worthy of her talent. It’s been far too long. Ryan Gosling successfully playsagainst type and shows us his comic side. Emma Stone is effervescent, hilariousand her lines are also very, very meta. Unfortunately, the film suffers fromunevenness as the directors are unable to balance the four love stories adequately.Some stories get more footage than necessary at the cost of the developing the othersbetter. Also, the needlessly extended climax and an unnecessary, rather creepysubplot (involving certain nude photos) mar the impact of an otherwise greatromantic comedy. Yet, overall, this is a surprisingly smart and charming film aboutlove between some really crazy, stupid but also good and loveable people.

Rating: 3.5/5

Friends With Benefits (2011)

2011-09-14T01:13:00.000-07:00

Two incredibly attractive, wise cracking leads.

A script that puts their wise cracks, foul mouths andamazing bodies to great use.

Energy bursting from every pore of the film.

A perfect exercise in pure formula like the director’sprevious work Easy A.

Solid support, particularly from Richard Jenkins and WoodyHarrelson.

Wish there was more of Patricia Clarkson though.

Meta-humour and film references in almost every scene.

This is formula for the Communitygeneration.

Deluded and unrealistic just like every other romanticcomedies.

But. Oh. So. Fun.

Bonus: Flash mobs. How can you not love them?

Verdict? Sit back and enjoy.

Rating: 3.5/5

P.S: I think I will stick to short reviews from hereon, at least for a while. What say?

P.P.S.: If the Community reference makes no sense to you, you are poorer for it.

Mere Brother Ki Dulhan (2011)

2011-09-10T05:26:00.000-07:00

The thing about froth is this: Itmakes a drink more interesting, appetizing and gives it a fresh look. However,ultimately, it’s just a whole lot of bubbles that eventually fizzle out. Whatmatters is the drink at the bottom: how much and how good that is. In case of Mere Brother Ki Dulhan, the froth isgreat. The product is slick and the embellishments work. However, the drinkitself is just about average. That is not to say it’s a bad film. I’ve said itbefore, I will say it again: Formulas exist for a reason. When used properly,they can be quite entertaining. MBKD,for better or for worse, is pure formula. It plays to the strengths of theformula by embracing its silliness and having a jolly good time with it, makingit just about entertaining enough to make it worthwhile.

The story is clear from thetrailers itself: Luv (Ali Zafar), who lives in London, wants to settle down with an Indianbride. He leaves the bride hunting to his younger brother Kush(Imran Khan), an assistant director, with a penchant for the filmy. After muchsearching, he finds Dimple (Katrina Kaif), a reformed wild child who knows howto enjoy life to the fullest. As the wedding preparations are underway, Kush and Dimple find themselves falling for each otherleading to a comedy of errors.

The story, script, dialogues anddirection are all by first timer, Ali Abbas Zafar. His story is routine and his script isuninspired. It maneuvers through the various romantic comedy clichés as ifwritten in autopilot. There are no plot twists whatsoever and the film playssteadfastly to the formula. It is also too long by 15 minutes thanks to theneedlessly extended climax.

Nevertheless, the film works byand large primarily because it avoids the emotional and the sappy and keeps theproceedings light throughout. The dialogues are hilarious in several places andZafar, the director directs the film with a sure, steady hand. He embraces thefilmy and goes to town with it. The film is abound with movie references and some of them truly bring the house down. He relies on the goofiness of its primary castthat delivers well. Katrina Kaif’s character is genuinely interesting and forthe first time, she actually delivers a great performance. She is laugh outloud funny, gorgeous and charming without trying too hard. Her performance hereis similar to Kareena Kapoor’s in Jab WeMet. Her chemistry with ImranKhan helps make even the dullest moments bearable. They look great together andcomplement each other throughout. Imran Khan has mastered the role of the boynext door and enacts his role effortlessly. He does seem to break out of character during some of the songs though. Ali Zafar is awkward and ill atease initially but settles into his role reasonably well as the filmprogresses. The music is zesty and helps add to the youthful atmosphere thefilm is aiming at. The production work is excellent and the camera feasts on the beautiful people and historical locations.

Ultimately, MBKD is hardly hatke. There isn’t anything here that you haven’tseen before. Nevertheless, it is harmlessly frothy, forgettable, filmy fun that will keep you entertained throughout. It is a perfectdate movie: sweet and amusing enough to entertain and predictable enough toallow for other extracurricular distractions.

Rating: 3/5

Bodyguard (2011)

2011-08-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

After a brief stint at the hospital, a graduation, a severe dearth of decent movies and a mild case of writer’s block, I decided to return to blogging with Salman Khan’s Bodyguard. A few weeks back, I wondered (on Twitter) why the film’s producers had chosen such an aggressive marketing campaign. Not only were the promos and songs on air with an alarming regularity, the actors were promoting the film at every channel on every major programme possible. After all, it is Salman Khan; and it is Eid. This is a combination that has set records for two years in a row. It made me wonder if this was because the film was so bankrupt of content that the producers thought such a campaign necessary to fetch the thunderous start at the box office it now seems destined to have. A preview show later, I can confirm: Bodyguard is an awful film; a massive disappointment, even by Salman’s own standards.

Where do I even begin? There is no plot worth discussing. There is a tough simpleton Lovely Singh (Salman Khan) who must protect the daughter (Kareena Kapoor) of his benefactor (Raj Babbar). The daughter decides to play with Lovely’s emotions by calling him and pretending to be a girl in love with him. A brutal fist fight later, the game (and the love) becomes real. However, the bodyguard doesn’t realize this, dimwitted as he is made out to be in a foolish hope that it is mistaken for adorable. Meanwhile, the bad guys are after her and only he stands in their way.

The film takes this thin premise and stretches it over a 140 minute runtime. So bereft is the film of something that resembles a plot that it even shamelessly borrows a subplot from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai in the end to justify its existence. Of course, it is all for naught. Just when you think the movie couldn’t get any worse, it does. Nothing works in the movie. The “love story” is essentially a rather cruel joke. The humour is primarily disgusting and borders on the offensive. The morbidly obese Rajat Rawail who acts as Lovely’s sidekick Tsunami (that’s his name, I kid you not), takes a stab at humour and actually ends up killing it. The jokes are just not funny. In places, they reek of homophobia and sexism. That the script is the product of five writers including the venerable Salim Khan who is credited as a ‘script consultant’ is a reminder of the standards to which writing as fallen to in mainstream, big budget Hindi cinema.

The action doesn’t work either. It lacks thrill throughout because of the lack of a credible villain. All the villains here are in special appearances, not to mention, complete buffoons. As far as choreography is concerned, just when you thought that Hindi films couldn’t overuse cable assisted action sequences any more, Bodyguard proves you oh so wrong. Salman Khan comes across as Neo and George of the Jungle in equal parts as he partakes in action sequences that destroy the laws of physics and make no sense whatsoever. Also, the special effects are just tacky. The sequence where Kareena is chased by a lethal mini helicopter through her house is funny for all the wrong reasons. In fact, as a production, this is just sloppy work in every department.

The only saving grace here is the music as we see Himesh Reshamiya make something of a comeback. The tunes are melodious although their awkward placement does not help them in the least. The performances are wooden. Both Kareena and Salman sleepwalk through their roles. As mentioned earlier, Rajat Rawail should be shot in public interest for his pathetic attempts at making you laugh.

Ultimately, Bodyguard makes Dabangg look like Deewaar and Ready like Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s Golmaal. To call it an insult to your intelligence is being kind to it. This is to Salman Khan what Jhoom Barabar Jhoom was to Yash Raj Films and Yaadein to Subhash Ghai. That’s how bad it is. It is a classic case of star power being used to sell a substandard film. My advice? Avoid…at all costs. This Bodyguard will give you a sar dard.

Rating: 1/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011)

2011-07-15T05:29:00.000-07:00

The Harry Potter phenomenon is a rare one, maybe even unique, for the fact that unlike most others that succeeded greatly on the marketing front (Twilight, Transformers), it is a series that is still, very much based in the fan base of its books. This fan base existed long before the movies were even conceived, let alone marketed and it has remained strong since. As books, they have made a deep connection with a global audience, a feat managed by very few others (Bible, for example). The films were by and large underwhelming. However, the Deathly Hallows Part I proved to be an impressive and satisfying (albeit slow) setup to the grand finale. I had said, when reviewing that film, that its greatness, or lack thereof, would largely depend on its successor. Finally, having seen its successor, it is safe to say the greatness of the former is likely to remain intact for a long time to come. For Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II is a great film and easily the finest of the series.

Voldemort (Fiennes) has the Elder Wand. Harry (Radcliffe), Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson), having buried Dobby, embark on a frantic quest to retrieve and destroy all the Horcruxes before it is too late. This includes breaking into Gringotts, daring escapades with dungeons and dragons and a battle at Hogwarts that will test the will of Harry, his friends and his allies to its maximum limits. For neither can live while the other survives.

In terms of storytelling, the film scores distinction marks. It keeps most of the important elements in the books intact and more significantly, channels its spirit effectively. It is just the right mix of thrills, epic action, humour and pathos. The look of the film is nothing short of spectacular. They really did save the best for last. Wonderful visual effects, dramatic action pieces, a haunting score and some fantastic camera work; no stone is left unturned. The Battle of Hogwarts is conjured up in all its glory and does not disappoint in the least. Creativity oozes out of every orifice of this film. The liberties taken from the source material are excellent. They are more pervasive than in the previous entries and inject into the story a dose of freshness that most of the fans should find endearing. In fact, in a few places, it is actually more coherent and (gulp!) better than the writing in the book. Prof. McGonagall's lines are truly worthy of applause. Also, the film provides more meat to Neville Longbottom's character and provides a star making turn for Matthew Lewis who nails the opportunity and shines.

Flaws? A few. The epilogue looks just as idiotic in the film as it did in the book. Seriously, I do not know what Rowling was on when she wrote it. None of the actors look convincingly old. Nevertheless, that is more a fault of the source material rather than the film itself. The film itself can be faulted for butchering the back story of Dumbledore. Gellert Grindelwald is nowhere to be seen. Random references to it in the beginning will only disappoint the readers and confuse the rest, howsoever few. Also, much of the lore behind the deathly hallows is watered down on a need to use basis, relegating them to the background. However, the only bit that was truly disappointing was the skipping of the most poignant and shocking death in the book and the line that Prof. McGonagall delivers to Prof. Slughorn in the book.

Nevertheless, these are trifles in an otherwise stupendous enterprise. The awkward moments are far fewer here than in Part I. The approach is also much bolder. The greatest moment of the film is its depiction of The Prince's Tale, in my honest opinion, the most powerful and moving chapter in the book, maybe even the series. Once again, liberties are taken, scenes are added and removed. However, the cinematic version is every bit as poignant and sad as the book and stands on its own elevating the film considerably, much like the animated telling of the story of the Deathly Hallows in Part I.

Ultimately, Deathly Hallows Part II is a fitting farewell to the singular greatest phenomenon of our generation. It is magnificent without beng excessive, creative without sacrificing the heart of the tale and unarguably, the best adapted film from the series. To all the fans of Harry Potter, carry a tissue or two. And at the end of it all, raise your glasses to Harry Potter, the boy who lived.

Rating: 4/5

Caution: Watch it in 2D. This is too dark a film, in terms of the colour palette. The 3D experience is most likely to be underwhelming since the film was neither conceived or shot with the intention of being converted to 3D.

Delhi Belly (2011)

2011-07-01T12:35:00.000-07:00

Hatke cinema came into vogue about a decade ago with films like Jhankaar Beats and others. Over the years, from a fringe movement, with greater commercial success, it has been mainstreamed and is now the cool thing to do. So much so that the biggest stars and production houses have taken it upon themselves to produce these sort of films. Aamir Khan has been on the forefront of this phenomenon, and proven himself to be something of a marketing genius in promoting these small (and often of dubious standard) movies to ensure big returns. Delhi Belly is his latest offering starring Imran Khan, Vir Das and Kunal Roy Kapur and much like Dhobi Ghat, the results are mixed at best.

Delhi Belly is about journalist Tashi (Khan) who lives with his two friends, the cartoonist (Das) and the pervert photographer (Kapur) in a derelict apartment in what seems to be one of the most squalid areas of Delhi. He receives a mysterious package from his fiance (She(h)naz Treasury(wala)) to deliver to an address. A free spirited colleague (Poorna Jagannathan), a case of severe loose motions and an unfortunate switch of packages leads to an insane comedy of errors as the trio is chased by goons (led by Vijay Raaz), jilted boyfriends and cops and chaos reigns supreme.

The film, directed by first timer Abhinay Deo and written by Akshat Verma, is not without its merits. For starters, the soundtrack of the film is simply superb. The tunes of Ram Sampath and the explosive lyrics of Amitabh Bhattacharya, complement the film every step of the way. It is also embellished with strong supporting performances particularly from Das, Kapur and Jagannathan although Imran Khan looks excruciatingly ordinary and brings little nuance or depth to his character. In terms of writing, there are some exceedingly clever dialogues throughout that will leave you in splits. The film successfully manages to be extremely edgy and naughty in its tone and approach. There are enough moments that will leave you sufficiently grossed out, disgusted and in a state of utter disbelief.

The problem here is that the film (and its makers) seem convinced that these elements alone suffice. They don't care too much for a plot or character development as they are too busy trying to distract you with how cool they are for using colourful expletives and gross out gags. Undeniably, there are some very interesting ideas here. Unfortunately, these ideas are very poorly translated into a plot. While the premise is set up competently in the first half, it is a rather glorious mess in the second half as highly implausible plot devices are thrown in and several loose ends are left untied. Several bits are either predictable or highly inexplicable. For example, why does Tashi live in such a filthy house despite having seemingly well of parents? Why does his rich fiance agree to carry such a package? There are several questions that come to mind and they only increase as the film progresses.

Ultimately, what starts off as an interesting premise does not end up amounting to anything more. Blame it on the poor plotting and the weak execution that undermine an otherwise slick production. I am not saying that it is a terrible movie. But it's not a very good one either. There will be those (including most, if not all, Indian critics) who will be enamoured by its coolness. I just wasn't. So, my advice? Wait for a lazy afternoon and cheap tickets or better still, DVDs.

Rating: 2.5/5

Transformers: The Dark of the Moon (2011)

2011-06-29T06:13:00.000-07:00

I have always thought that Michael Bay is like the Manmohan Desai of Hollywood. His movies focused on entertaining you at all costs and critics love to hate him. Take the first Transformers for instance. I loved that film. I thought it was an excellent mix of humour, action, visual effects and packed just enough human drama and plot to make me want to suspend disbelief quite wholeheartedly. He is the king of masala movies in Hollywood. Films like The Rock and Armageddon continue to entertain millions around the world even today.

However, he too has his share of misfires and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was arguably his greatest folly (Pearl Harbor being a very close second). Loud, convoluted, thoroughly pointless and at times, offensive, it was a headache inducing 3 hour disaster that just refused to end. It emphasised strictly on visuals and there too, opted for mere excess rather than further innovation. Therefore, I had reservations about the second sequel, particularly when they had the gall to use the title of a Pink Floyd album. Nevertheless, I found myself outside a theatre today at 9:30 a.m. surrounded by a sea of adolescents eagerly fighting their way through the lines for tickets to the first show. And much to my surprise, it was worth the effort.

The story starts in the 1960s when a Cybertronian ship crash lands on the dark side of the moon triggering the Space Race for its recovery. Cut to present time, Sam (Shia LeBeouf) has graduated, is frustrated and looking for a job. He has a new girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) who works to restore an antique car gallery owned by millionaire Dylan Gould (Patrick Dempsey) who also is on the Board for an MNC named Accurate where Sam gets a job. In another part of the world, the Autobots and Capt. Lennox (Josh Duhamel) find a piece from the wreckage of the Cybertronian ship at Chernobyl which leads to the discovery and recovery of Sentinal Prime (Leonard Nimoy) on the ship along with a powerful new technology with frightening implications. At the same time, the Decepticons are moving. The pieces are set. The pawns are in place. Let the action begin!

There are four new additions to the cast: Patrick Dempsey, Leonard Nimoy, Frances MacDormand as the National Intelligence Director and John Malkovich as Sam's eccentric boss at the company. In terms of plot, the film goes back to the basics and provides a plotline similar to the first film but constructed on a much larger scale. The film is a vast improvement over Revenge of the Fallen simply for the fact that it benefits from a more coherent and whole plotline that is just enough to make you want to disregard the various plotholes. Michael Bay directs the film with a steady hand and manages to keep a better leash on its monstrous length and visual excesses.

Of course, as always, there is no characterisation worth talking about. There are a few smart lines here and there. Most of the actors sleepwalk through their roles like in the first two films. Turturro thankfully is far less annoying here. Dempsey's charming, villainous act not only looks effortless, but also probably is. Frances MacDormand is wasted in a minor role. However, Leonard Nimoy is exceptional as Sentinal Prime and brings the requisite amount of dignity to the character. Also, John Malkovich is wonderful in a minor role as he is allowed to run rampage and do what he does best. But that's all him rather than any effort from the writers. I have a sneaking suspicion that they left his parts in the script blank and allowed him to fill them up as he thought fit. Huntington-Whitely is a suitable replacement for Megan Fox and, like her predecessor, looks devastatingly gorgeous and acts very little.

Visually, however, the film is nothing short of spectacular. I hate 3D technology fro the bottom of my heart as it is mercilessly exploited by strudios for better weekend grosses. However, Michael Bay makes exceptional use of the technology making Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the one film after Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon that I would recommend watching in 3D rather than 2D. The sheer depth and scale the technology adds here is tremendous and thankfully, Bay compensates for the colour saturation in terms of the lighting sufficiently to prevent 3D from dampening the experience.

In terms of the effects, the film thankfully focuses on not just bigger and more numerous action sequences, but also more interesting ones. Not since Transformers has a movie made me marvel and gasp this much at the action sequences. The detail with which the scenes are constructed and the use of slow motion at the appropriate moments adds much to the visual appeal of the film. The climactic battle is long, maybe a little too much. Nevertheless, the camerawork, the conceptualisation of the visual effects and the choreography of the action sequences is fantastic enough to make it well worth your time. In terms of pure action, the bridge chase sequence in the pre-interval portion is truly inspired stuff. Thankfully, the sound work this time is kept in check such that the metal crushing doesn't induce headaches.

At the end of the day, Transformers: The Dark of the Moon is nowhere as bad as its nonsensical title suggests. Sure, it is just as silly, overstuffed and excessive as you would expect from a Michael Bay film. The film won't win the franchise new fans. However, the fans of the first have reason to rejoice. It is a vast improvement over its immediate predecessor and is a throughly entertaining and engrossing ride from start to end. Its eye popping visuals are mounted on a plot which is just about strong enough to hold it all together. I can't say it won't insult your intelligence. However, I can say that you will probably forgive it for that.

Rating: 3.5/5

P.S.: (minor spoiler) I do think the climax and basic plot line is "borrowed" from Doctor Who: End of Time, Megatron being the Master and Sentinel being the Rassilon. What do you think Jason?

Shaitan, X Men: First Class and West is West (2011): A Mixed Bag

2011-06-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

Due to a lack of internet facilities, updating the blog has proved to be a little difficult. But anyway, three movies of interest released last week. Here’s what I thought of them:

Shaitan: Despite Indian critics raving about it, I think it was a rather weak film, especially so by Anurag Kashyap’s own self-imposed standards. He is a film maker that boasts of realism and novelty in his works and Shaitan had neither of these. In terms of plot, it was essentially inspired by the Akshay Kumar starrer Khiladi mixed with Cruel Intentions and several other poorer Hollywood teen drama movies. 5 over-privileged, debauch kids decide to stage a kidnapping to extort money from their parents and in the process, bite off way more than they can chew. Sound familiar? Also, it was laughably unrealistic particularly in the post-interval portions. The characters lacked depth and the film has a judgmental tone that is shockingly illiberal. Not everyone who has sex, is promiscuous and indulges in drugs are repressed maniacs with a propensity for violence. Nevertheless, it was stylistically classy and well-executed. The soundtrack is excellent and the photography is brilliant in certain portions with interesting use of light and shadow. There was also some experimenting in the story telling by Bejoy Nambiar, who shows promise as a director. The performances were strong but the one stand out performance was that of Kalki Koechlin. Overall, this is perhaps the weakest of Kashyap’s films since No Smoking.

Rating: 2/5

X Men: First Class: With Layer Cake and Kick-Ass, the one thing Matthew Vaughn proved is that he is one of the most stylish storytellers today. Here, he attempts to resuscitate the fledgling X Men series and while he fails to restore its glory in its entirety, he is successful enough to make us hunger for more. The prequel begins with providing us with the origins of Eric Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), a Nazi concentration camp survivor and Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), a privileged and brilliant Professor specialising in the study of mutations at Oxford. When the CIA stumbles upon a plot to start World War III by the sinister Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), it recruits the two mutants to find others like themselves and save the world from destruction. While the film is suave and stuffed with immense amounts of cool, it lacks the substance and spirit that could have taken the series to the next level. The story suffers for the sake of style and there is little character development worth talking about. The only exception to the character of Eric Lensherr which benefits from a fantastic performance from Michael Fassbender who plays the powerful but damaged Magneto to perfection. Overall, this is a good but not great movie. A superb cameo from Wolverine though.

Rating: 3/5

West is West: A considerably improvement over East is East, this film was entirely different in substance and tone taking a much more serious approach than the first film. It is less crass, lewd and doesn’t play to the galleries like East is East did. Here, Jahangir Khan a.k.a. George (Om Puri) takes his last born Sajid (Aqib Khan) to his homeland in Pakistan to make him acquainted with his roots. In so doing, he confronts his first wife and the family he left behind 30 years ago leading to hilarity and poignancy in equal measure. Written with great wit and uncharacteristic amounts of intelligence, the film depicts the alternate culture and life in the Orient without mystifying or demonsing it. Its non-judgmental tone and emphasis on symbiosis is laudable. The humour is plenty in supply and works brilliantly in a lot of places. The verbal sparring between Pir Naseem and Sajid are some of the best written portions of the film. The director also does a remarkable job of contrasting Sajid’s journey of self-discovery with:George’s journey of re-discovery which involves facing his past. The performances of Om Puri, Ila Arun and Nadim Sawalha are simply outstanding. Ila Arun particularly pitches in a powerful and haunting act. Only one flaw: set in 1976, the film lacks a strong sense of time and place, which could have elevated the film to another level. Nevertheless, this is a thoroughly entertaining and insightful film that should not be disregarded.

Rating: 3.5/5

Kung Fu Panda 2: The Return of Po!

2011-05-26T03:54:00.000-07:00

Sequels are tricky business. The audience, satiated by the first film, expects more from the second. Most film makers mistake the more to mean simply more of the elements that made the first film good. So a sequel to Pirates of the Caribbean will simply find excuses to shoehorn more and more eye popping visuals and Jack Sparrow humour without bothering with a coherent story let alone daring to deliver something different. Very rarely does a sequel try something different and actually succeeds in it, while keeping the elements that made the original so successful (Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Toy Story 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 attempts that and thankfully, succeeds in doing so, by and large.

Welcome back to the Valley. Po (Jack Black) has, with the Furious Five, protected the Valley and maintained peace and harmony. However, sinister things are brewing in Gongmen City, where a formidable villain, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) has sworn to bring an end to kung fu and devised a weapon that threatens peace in all of China. At the same time, Po discovers a secret about his past that makes him question everything and he must find answers as he sets out on a journey to defeat the enemy and save not only the Valley but all of China!

In terms of plotting, the film owes a big debt to the Biblical story of Moses and a more minor one to The Lion King. However, these plot devices are suitably transposed to the universe of the Panda and, thanks to some clever writing and strong storytelling, stand on their own to provide a thoroughly entertaining time. While the film is short on humour compared to the first, there are several moments which will have you laughing hard. The dragon disguise scene in particular is side splittingly funny. The action set pieces are innovative and funny and awe-inspiring in equal measure. The film also charts into new territory with its dramatic elements. This is a considerably darker and meaner film. Both the hero and his nemesis are given more depth and dimension than the first. And it does a fantastic job of balancing it all providing grand entertainment with sufficient pathos to make it well worth our time. In doing so, it is much better than Shrek 2 made by the same studio, which attempted something similar (in that case, trading comedy for romance).

What also helps the film greatly is that it is gorgeously animated. Each frame is rich in terms of colour and texture. Even the most mundane and routine elements are beautifully visualised and brought alive on the screen. Particularly, the animation in flashbacks and the climactic battle is breathtaking and the visuals there add greatly to the emotional impact. The voice cast as expected, never disappoints and there are excellent vocal cameos from Michelle Yeoh as the Soothsayer and Jean Claude Van-Damme as Master Croc. Jack Black carries the film on his broad shoulders and is ever bit as endearing as he was in the first outing.

Ultimately, Kung Fu Panda 2 is quite different from its predecessor in substance and tone in that it is considerably less funny and more dramatic. However, what it may lack in humour, it more than makes up for in adventure, scale, depth and poignancy. Moreover, it loses none of the heart and little of the exuberance that made the first so endearing. Magnificently animated and thoroughly entertaining from start to end, Kung Fu Panda 2 is that rare kind of sequel that not only delivers the goods, but leaves you longing for more. I didn’t think I would say this, but we really need a third outing. Soon.

Rating: 4/5

Thor (2011): Gods and Monsters Galore!

2011-04-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

The Avengers is arguably having one of the greatest build ups in movie history. The movie arrives in 2012 and will be directed by the TV sci-fi genius, Joss Whedon (Firefly, Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel). But before that, we have a variety of superhero movies as a build up to what will be one of two most anticipated movies of Summer 2012 (the other being Nolan's final entry of the Batman series). First, there was Iron Man which was followed by The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2. Now, we have Thor which will be followed by Captain America: The First Avenger. Each film has a standalone story and at the same time, forms one large origins story together forming a bridge that leads to The Avengers. So, the one question that remains is: does Thor satisfy? The answer is yes. Hell yes.

The film introduces us to the land of the gods, Asgard ruled by the just, valiant and fair Odin (Anthony Hopkins). After defeating the Frost Giants of Jotunheim in a great war, the kingdom has maintained an uneasy alliance with them keeping their source of power while letting them live. Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Odin’s first born, and the wielder of Mjolnir, the hammer with infinite power, is a spoilt, warmongering man filled with pride and vanity. The second born Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is a magician beyond compare and resents his brother for all that he is. Thor, with his friends, impulsively attacks the Frost Giants, thereby breaking the truce that has existed between the two planets. For this, Odin banishes Thor to Earth, stripping him of his power to teach him a lesson. There he meets Jane (Natalie Portman), a scientist (or astrophysicist...or something like that), her mentor Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and her assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings). S.H.I.E.L.D. gets control of the hammer. Now Thor must learn his lesson to earn his power and position back. Meanwhile, something sinister is brewing in Asgard.

As a character, like Tony Stark, Thor is arrogant and vain. However, unlike Tony Stark, there is a childishness to his arrogance; a boyishness to his pride that makes him idiotic and not cool. At the same time, he is honourable, loyal and inherently good. Therefore, you can’t help but root for him. He is a more straightforward and conventional superhero.

Kennneth Branagh, whose previous credits as a director include Peter’s Friends, Dead Again and multiple Shakespeare adaptations, directs Thor. An odd choice of director, one may say. However, Branagh handles the film well, embracing the inherent silliness of it all and having delightful amounts of fun with it. And I tell you, it is silly. There are electric super-storms, tornadoes and what not in a small town in New Mexico and the laws of science are bent and broken at convenience. However, the proceedings are engrossing throughout as the director pays due respect to the mythical elements of the comics avoids the sappy and syrupy like the plague. There is a lot of cleverness shining out of every pore of the film, whether it is in the lines or the humour or the self-referencing. So, even though the love story is half baked, the effects are shoddy in places and the two halves of the film are badly balanced (with too little happening in the first half and too much in the second), you don’t really care because you are too busy being entertained.

Hemsworth is perfectly cast as Thor. He looks the part and has the winning personality required for it also. He is most certainly destined for stardom. Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings are largely wasted and more screentime is given Jaimie Alexander who looks gorgeous and kicks some serious ass. Stellan Skarsgard provides able support and provides relief at all the right places. Tom Hiddleston is thoroughly menacing as Loki and could really do well as Snape in a remake of Harry Potter 20 years from now. Idris Elba is supremely cool as Heimdall, the all seeing Asgardian Gate Keeper.

At the end of the day, suspension of disbelief is a much abused term in cinema. However, there is a reason why the term was created and Thor is an excellent example of it. Go ahead. Enjoy.

Rating: 3.5/5

P.S.: The only thing better than watching a great movie in the cinema is watching two great movies in the cinema.

Shor in the City (2011): Chaotic Brilliance

2011-04-30T01:04:00.000-07:00

There are few things I hate admitting. This is one of them. Ekta Kapoor, in my humble opinion, is fast turning into a remarkable film producer with a unique place for herself in the industry. Through a regular dose of wildly experimental films, she is changing the ball game entirely. Last year, it was Love, Sex aur Dhokha. This year, it is Shor in the City followed by Ragini MMS. First to hit the theatres is Shor in the City and my, what a movie this is! It is arguably the best exercise in black humour that we have seen in years in this side of the world. It is tough, gritty, mean and at times, oh-so-funny. This is the kind of movie that Dhobi Ghat wish it had been.

The film has three intersecting stories set during the Ganpati Festival in Mumbai. The first is of Tilak (Tushar Kapoor) who runs a printing press that specialises in printing pirated copies of bestsellers. Recently married, he bums around with his two friends Ramesh (Nikhil Dwivedi) and Mandook (Pitobash). A bag stolen from the train opens a can of worms that none of them are prepared for. Next, we have Sawan Murthy a.k.a. Savvy (Sundeep Kishan), who needs to come up with 10 lakhs to make the team for state cricket (and from there, IPL). He also must deal with his girlfriend who is under constant pressure for marriage from her family. Finally, we have Abhay (Sendhil Ramamurthy, Heroes), an NRI returning to India, who is struggling to start a business and must deal with local thugs trying to extract money in the name of “security”.

Clocking just over 100 minutes, the film is a taut, well paced dramedy. The stories run parallel to each other and the proceedings get quite chaotic. However, the film has been directed with great precision by first timers Raj Nidimoru and Krishna DK. They direct the film with a steady hand and hold the attention of the audience throughout. They show a great eye for visuals and rich, atmospheric details that help set the tone of the film at several places. The movie is incredibly tense and deliriously funny in equal parts. Moreover, the romance here, particularly between Tilak and his wife, has a lovely awkwardness to it which is absolutely adorable. As they navigate through different moments of intimacy, there is a certain poignancy, humour and charm that is all but lost in romances these days.

Technically, the film is absolutely brilliant. The camerawork is stupendous and captures a completely different side of the city. While Dhobi Ghat gave us a look at the city and its culture from the outside, choosing to observe things from a distance, the cinematography Shor in the City consciously chooses a more intimate approach. Suffusing the frames with a warm colour palette, it immerses you in the city, whether it is the upper middle class milieu or the large street processions during Ganpathi Visarjan. The odd angles and the crisp editing help create the atmosphere of chaos that is central to the film. The minimal music is absolutely fantastic and used appropriately throughout.

In terms of performances, the entire principal cast delivers fine performances. And yes, that includes Tushar Kapoor. In an interesting mix of machismo, decency and almost childlike innocence, he is actually perfectly cast in the role. Nikhil Dwivedi is also brilliant as the best friend. However, the one performance that you take with you from the film is that of Pitobash Tripathy who is stupendous as the wise cracking, naive and extremely annoying part of the trio. He is impulsive, absurd, and downright daft at times and absolutely convinces you of his idiocy.

The film does have some minor flaws primarily in its conclusion where it seems to suffer from spasms and goes a bit erratic. But overall, this is easily the most fun I have had in a Hindi movie in a very long time. It does draw inspirations from Four Lions, Dog Day Afternoon and other films. However, it brings its disparate elements together and weaves them into a sharp narrative. It is smart, funny, shocking and gritty in equal measure and totally worth the price of admission. In these sad times, how rare is that?

Rating: 4/5

Rango (2011): Ambitious Animation

2011-04-18T02:57:00.000-07:00

Rango is the polar opposite of Rio. While Rio is mostly been there done that, Rango is nothing like you have ever seen before in animation. For starters, this is an animated film for adults; that rare one that goes beyond rude humour and double entendres as an attempt to include adults within its target audience. Sure, there is plenty of humour for children, but this is a film that adults will appreciate and enjoy more. It is a marvellous little gem of a film that tries to be so many things and succeeds ultimately at most of them. This is to Pixar what Pixar was to Disney. It is a challenge; the next step in animated storytelling.

Rango is about a lot of things. The plot is arguably the least of them all. But anyway, it is a film about a Lizard with No Name (Johnny Depp) whose quiet, lonely life in a fish tank writing plays, musicals and conversing with toys is turned upside down when he gets separated from his keepers and is left in the Mojave Desert. As he courses through the harsh terrain, he comes across the town of Dirt occupied by various reptilian and feline creatures. There, he claims to be a hero from the West and dons the name Rango. With a quirk of fate and a little luck, he quickly finds himself promoted to Sheriff by the Tortoise Mayor (Ned Beatty). But there is something sinister brewing. The town has run out of water and there is no explanation for it. Together with the townsmen, Rango sets out to investigate this on a path that will lead him to discover true heroism.

While Rio played it safe and by the numbers, Rango has ambition to spare. Gorgeously animated in traditional 2D, it starts out slow but grows on you over time. The first half is interesting but offbeat and not very funny. But once you accept and get accustomed to its deliberate awkwardness, the second half is brilliant, near perfect in its execution. The film is bursting at its seams with originality and uncharacteristic amounts of intelligence. It is a nice reminder of what Gore Verbinski is actually capable of when he is not busy churning out crappy box office blockbusters (Read: PoTC 2 & 3). The film is abound with clever movie references from Chinatown to the Leone’s Dollars Trilogy; from Lord of the Rings to Depp’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Having said this, there are flaws in the film. The sudden shifts in tone throughout the film seem odd and awkward. There are times when the film is overtly serious or slapstick, particularly in the first half. Plus, the resolution of the mystery itself is unclear and inadequately explained. However, these are forgivable flaws in an otherwise stupendous enterprise. The animation is stunning in places, particularly the slow motion depiction of the accident that leaves Rango stranded in the desert, the aerial battle in the second half of the film as well as the scenic beauty of the desert throughout. The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent and testimony to his versatility as a composer. It incorporates traditional Country/Western instruments and tunes and gives it a very contemporary spin.

Johnny Depp is brilliantly cast as Rango and gives us arguably a character even more interesting than Captain Jack Sparrow. His voice modulation is stunning in places. Isla Fisher and Abigail Breslin are quite cute as Rango’s love interest, Beans and the little rodent Priscilla. Ned Beatty and Bill Nighy are menacing as the Mayor and Rattlesnake Jake. However, the true standout voiceover is that of Timothy Olyphant as the Spirit of the West. He nails the Clint Eastwood style and accent, and had me completely fooled.

Ultimately, Rango is soaked in ambition and is a wickedly funny, smart and deliriously original film. It may be imperfect in certain respects but it certainly represents a bold step forward in the field of animation. It is a fantastic return to form for Depp and Verbinski and is an absolute treat for those who expect their movies to have brains.

Rating: 4/5

HappyThankYouMorePlease (2011)

2011-04-15T04:07:00.000-07:00

It is easy to dismiss the Sundance favourite HappyThankYouMorePlease as just another sitcom-ish pretentious New York movie about self-absorbed young people whose little problems are made to look like the end of the world. I choose not to tread down that path. Personally, I found HappyThankYouMorePlease to be a disarmingly charming, sweet film about a bunch of New Yorkers dealing with life, adulthood and all the little quirks that entails. It features believable, endearing characters caught between the teenage mentalities left behind, their present carefree existences and the increasing demands of adulthood. Like any set of interconnecting stories, there are portions I liked more than the others. But what is surprising, is that I loved them all and the film as a whole. There was not a single story that was odd or pale in comparison to the others.

The film has three distinct stories. We first meet a young, struggling writer Sam (Radnor) who finds a kid (Michael Algieri) in the New York subway and takes him in. He also manages to seduce Mississippi (Kate Mara), a waitress at a restaurant trying hard to hold her own life together. His family friend is Mary Catherine (Zoe Kazan), a stationery store employee who is in a steady relationship with the bum Charlie (Pablo Schreiber). Their relationship is tested when he asks her to leave New York and move to Los Angeles for his work. Finally, there is Sam’s best friend Annie (Malin Akerman), who suffers from Alopecia; does philanthropic work and is deeply unhappy with her life. However, things take an interesting turn when she meets the ordinary looking and slightly odd Sam (No. 2) (Tony Hale) who works in the legal department of her office.

The film is wonderfully written and directed by Josh Radnor (Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother). The dialogues are offbeat and insightful. Although the influence of Woody Allen is evident in certain portions, there is vibrancy and joy throughout that is all Radnor. The narrative is surprisingly even with all the stories interconnecting almost seamlessly. The greatest bits are in the last half hour where each story is poignantly concluded, with honesty, realism but a strong sense of hope and optimism. It is here that Radnor, the writer really shines. The themes are nicely wrapped together in this portion and equally reflected in each of the stories. As a New York movie, it is the best I have seen in recent years.

Of the individual stories, the story of Annie and Sam (No. 2) is the finest. The characters are beautifully realised there and the story is extremely touching and beautiful. Radnor’s use of the camera is interesting in places, particularly the close ups and the lighting that create a sense of intimacy. The production quality is good and soundtrack is excellent featuring some fine songs by Jaymay specially produced for the film.

The performances are outstanding. In the hands of a more amateur cast, the film would fall apart despite the scripting. However, the cast here is extremely competent. It also benefits from the fact that they are somewhat known but not hugely popular which allows them to bring a distinct freshness to the film. The performances you really take home are those of Tony Hale and Malin Akerman. Akerman (Watchmen, 27 Dresses) sheds her glamorous image and takes up a complex and challenging role, doing it complete justice. Hale brings a lot of depth to his few lines. The other outstanding performance is that of Pablo Schreiber as the passionate but frustrated Charlie. The final confrontation scene between him and Kazan is particularly excellent.

While it may not be The Station Agent, HappyThankYouMorePlease is an intelligent and remarkable debut for Josh Radnor as a writer and director, who shows great potential for storytelling. As a 20 something, I found much in the film I could relate to. Thematically, it reminded me of Garden State but without the grim and melancholic tones. So, give it a shot with an open mind and you are unlikely to be disappointed. This is a buoyant, lovely little indie that will make you feel warm, joyous and put a smile on your face for a long time after. And like the film says, we all deserve to be happy and feel loved. Dear Mr. Radnor, thank you. More please?

Rating: 4/5

Rio (2011): An Exuberant Trifle

2011-04-14T22:55:00.000-07:00

In Hollywood, animation has grown considerably in the last twenty years. With each entry in the genre pushing boundaries, technically as well as in terms of storytelling, it is difficult not to be critical of the ones that settle for less. Last year, we had Megamind, which played, in my opinion, like a poor man’s version of Despicable Me. I walked into Rio expecting a similar moviegoing experience, particularly because 20th Century Fox Animation hadn’t delivered anything remotely memorable apart from the Ice Age franchise. But I must admit, I was very pleasantly surprised. Although it will not win any awards or accolades, Rio is a wonderfully animated and quite an adorable film that has something for all ages.

The plot of Rio is expectantly quite routine. Think Madagascar done as a generic love story with a strong conservation theme. Blu (Jesse Eisenberg) is the last male Macaw of his kind. Caged and taken away from his natural habitat, he was found and raised by Linda (Leslie Mann) in Moose Lake, Minnesota. He can’t fly and is quite comfortable living in captivity. A visit from a bird specialist Tulio (Rodrigo Santaro) reveals that there is a female Macaw, Jewel (Anne Hathaway) held in captivity in Rio and that Blu could save his species. This brings them to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where Blu must deal with vicious bird catchers, being lost in the Wild, saving the species and winning the affection of Jewel, all in the middle of the Rio Carnival, the biggest carnival in the world.

The first half of the film plays it safe and by the numbers. There are no surprises or twists worth talking about. The characters are introduced and you can see every twist and turn along the way well before it arrives. However, the love story has enough heart and the humour is spot on. The double entendres are a little too obvious in places but my god, they are funny! The second half of the film picks up quite well and the finale is absolutely entertaining. The original music by John Powell is very good overall and the film features some great foot-tapping tunes.

The quality of the animation is quite simply, outstanding. The detail with which Rio de Janeiro is brought to life is mesmerising to behold. It reminds you of the recreation of Paris in Ratatouille. The scenes running to the favellas of Rio are particularly well done. However, the truly stunning moment in the film is in the penultimate portions where the Rio Carnival is animated in all its glory. Those portions are awe-inspiring and pretty spectacular. The quality of the 3D is superior as it does not dull the colour pallette and therefore, the moviegoing experience.

The film also benefits from an outstanding voice cast. Jesse Eisenberg and Anne Hathaway work exceedingly well as a pair. As expected, she is effortlessly charming; he is awkwardly so. Together, they give the protagonists depth and flair in equal measure. The other outstanding contributions are from will.i.am and Jamie Foxx as Pedro and Nico, the two birds accompanying Blu and Jewel after they are on the run from bird catchers. They are funny, musical and play like more melodious versions of Eddie Murphy in Shrek and Mulan. Jemaine Clement is hilarious as Nigel, the aging bird who is helping the crooks.

Overall, there is little in Rio that you haven’t seen before. However, it is saved by some wonderful animation, an exuberant spirit and just about enough heart to make you feel the love. It is a trifle, and nothing more. But this is exactly the kind of trifle you want to indulge in. So. Indulge away.

Rating: 3.5/5

Love and Other Drugs (2010)

2011-04-11T02:35:00.000-07:00

Edward Zwick is a bit of a wild card with his films. He constantly experiments with the subject matter of his films and he has his share of advocates and adversaries. His works often divide critics and Love and Other Drugs was no exception. Plus, it was dumped into the markets rather unceremoniously by 20th Century Fox. Despite this, I looked forward to the film with some anticipation. And it wasn’t in vain because even though it isn’t an extremely well crafted motion picture, I found it highly refreshing in its frank, honest take on adult relationships.

The film is set in the late 1990s. Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal), an aimless, empty womaniser is trying to make a career in the highly competitive pharmaceutical market as a sales representative. He flirts his way up; it’s a part of his job description. On one of his sales visits, he meets Maggie (Anne Hathaway), a carefree artist who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. What starts out as just casual sex gradually develops into romance which soon gets complicated as her disease and his career path are moving in opposite directions.

With Love and Other Drugs, Zwick moves into entirely uncharted territory i.e. romantic comedies. The script has its moments and they are peppered throughout the film such that the proceedings are rarely dull. The conversations between the two lead characters are always interesting and insightful. The humour moves beyond jokes and gags and relies on wit, irony and sarcasm. Thankfully, the writing is also solid in the dramatic portions as well. In fact, it is these portions that stay with you. The scene where an old man tells Jamie of his experience of living with his wife suffering from Parkinson’s disease is brutally painful in its honesty. Hathaway’s outburst when she is unable to get her medication is also extremely well done.

Thematically, the film does come off as an awkward mix of romance, comedy and social commentary. It succeeds most in the as a love story as it doesn’t try to do much with the rest. Had these been integrated better into the narrative, then we would have a classic on our hands. Nevertheless, Zwick uses Maggie's disease and pharmaceutical industry (particularly the introduction of Viagra in the market) well as plot devices to move the romance forward. Thankfully, he refrains from being preachy and never moves the focus away from the romance. The dialogues are stunning in places, particularly in the second half of the film. The sex is fairly graphic, a rarity in an American film with mainstream stars but it is also emotional and aesthetic, which is a rarity in American films altogether.

The film also benefits from bravura performances from Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal, both of whom shed all inhibitions for the camera, quite literally so. Their chemistry is electric. Gyllenhaal is very good as the funny and charming Jamie and brings out the transformation of his character quite well. But it is Hathaway who steals the show. She is absolutely outstanding as an outgoing, assertive woman struggling with a debilitating disease at a young age. She particularly performs exceedingly well in portraying the character at her most vulnerable and volatile. It is remarkable to note how much she has grown as an actor from The Princess Diaries or even The Devil Wears Prada. It is on their broad shoulders that the film rests and they deliver excellent performances.

I guess the best way to see Love and Other Drugs is to see it as a love story set in the backdrop of the pharmaceutical market in the mid-1990s. It works that way quite well. It has moments of outrageous humour and emotional resonance in equal measure. It’s not a particularly strong comment on the state of the practice of medicine in the United States. But I don’t think it was ever intended to be. For that, I highly recommend Michael Moore’s Sicko. This film is for those who like a dose of honesty in their romantic comedies. It is not the classic it could have been given that the film appears quite disjointed in portions. Even so, it still qualifies as a heart-warming, earnest and oh-so-adult romance whose honesty sets it apart from the legion of trashy romances and rom-coms.

Rating: 3.5/5

Sucker Punch (2011): A Fascinatingly Bad Film

2011-03-25T09:54:00.000-07:00

There are various kinds of bad films. There is the plain and simple bad; the guilty pleasure; the shocking disappointment; the offensive film and so on. Then there is a rarer category, the fascinatingly bad film: one that has an interesting concept or some daring ideas which engage you and make you ponder but collapses completely at the stage of execution. Sucker Punch is one such film. It takes a gimmicky but fairly stunning concept and quickly spirals out of control as it finds itself way out of its depth ending up as a glorious but incoherent mess.

The film is two and a half stories packed into one narrative. The primary story is of a girl (Emily Browning) who is institutionalized in a cuckoo house when her stepfather falsely implicates her for the murder of her sister. Filmy, I know. She has five days before she is lobotomized thanks to an orderly (bribed by the stepfather) and must escape within that time. To fight her battle, she constructs an alternate reality in her head where the madhouse becomes a burlesque club cum whorehouse; the psychiatrist becomes Madame Gorski (Carla Gugino); the orderly becomes the sleazy club-owner (Oscar Isaac) and the patients become exotic dancers: Amber (Jamie Cheung), Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Blondie (Vanessa Anne Hudgens) and Rocket (Jena Malone). In this reality, Baby Doll (Browning again) must escape the whorehouse before a High Roller (Jon Hamm) comes in five days and claims her virginity. Still with me? Because then, there is the third reality, where Baby Doll’s guardian angel/wise man/creepy-old-guy-in-inexplicably-different-avatars (Scott Glen) advises her on how to escape and each stage of the plan is conjured as an action packed adventure: fighting a ghost army of Nazis, bomb detonations on alien planets, sieges involving dungeons and dragons; and more, lots more.

Zach Snyder (300, Watchmen) is an accomplished storyteller; there is no doubt about that. Give him a good story and he knows how to tell it. The greatest misfortune for Sucker Punch is that Zach Snyder is not only telling the story, he is also writing it. This is his first film based on an original story and screenplay (co-written by himself and Steve Shibuya, also a first time writer). While he directs the film to the best of his abilities, he fails rather spectacularly as a story writer. The film starts off with a very interesting concept and successfully navigates its entry into the three realities. Alas, on its way out, it gets caught up in a maze of inexplicable contradictions and contrivances and consequently, the story collapses entirely under its own weight.

The fundamental flaw in the writing is that while the second and third realities are at least reasonably analogised and interlinked, the primary story is conveniently forgotten leaving the film with little sense, if any. The screenplay is disastrously bad where the sage advice of the Wise Man (Glenn, as he is credited) seem to have dropped straight out of bad Hallmark cards and there is no character development worth talking about. Thematically, the film often is quite offensive in its treatment of women and warped, borderline perverse ideas of girl power. As far as being sexy is concerned, it is curiously unsuccessful. These, along with the PG-13 rating, make it hard to tell who the movie is for: it will do little for pubescent boys or action junkies and absolutely nothing for women. I must admit though that Snyder knows his pop culture well and throws in a dizzying number of references throughout the narrative. But these seem indulgent at best since they don’t provide any meaning to the film. The conclusion of the film, in my humble opinion, is downright nonsensical and removes any chance of salvaging the proceedings and providing any coherence to the film. It is in moments like these that you wonder where Christopher Nolan is when you need him!

However, the interesting (and frustrating) thing is that, as a production, the film has more than a fair share of brilliant moments. The stylistic visuals, typical of Snyder’s films, are provided here in a large supply. The camerawork is striking. The action sequences are spectacular in places. The Nazi battle sequence, stylistically similar to the animated 9, provides some dazzling and unforgettable visuals. The dragon scene, though reminiscent of Lord of the Rings, had moments where my jaw dropped. Music is used in several places to provide meaning and set the mood (admittedly drawing inspiration from Moulin Rouge!) and the re-arrangement of some of the tunes by Tyler Bates and the cast is pretty impressive. The production design and costume work is an interesting mix of styles and times which gives the film the dream like look it needed. We see 1930s costumes and art work, fantasy, manga and sci-fi elements, classic kung-fu cinema settings, and even 1940s war recreations with medieval fortresses. However, it is all for naught as the story does not know what to do with these moments and how to pull these disparate elements together into something called a narrative. Further, the push for a PG-13 rating robs many moments of their edge and impact and the toning down of several sequences looks forced and obvious.

In terms of performances, Emily Browning is miscast as Baby Doll as she conveys neither the innocence nor the determination of the character. She seems expressionless, cold and oddly detached throughout. Most of the actors are wasted in the enterprise. The only notable exception is Jena Malone who is dazzling as Rocket. She looks and acts the part and even makes you care for her fate. Oscar Isaacs is passable as the oily club owner. And Carla Gugino, as much as I love you, Cate Blanchett just called. She wants her Indy Jones accent back.

Ultimately, Sucker Punch is a fascinatingly bad film. On one hand, it is soaked in ambition with a great concept and features some outstanding production work delivering some original, inventive visuals. On the other, it squanders its potentially epic premise thanks to some Razzie-worthy pathetic writing, forgettable characters and (mostly) poor performances. It is a long, laborious and agonizing film that goes wrong at so many levels (quite literally in this instance), that it is difficult to keep count. Dear Mr. Snyder, next time, stick to directing adaptations please?

Rating: 1/5

World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles (2011): Awful!

2011-03-12T03:41:00.000-08:00

Ordinarily, the title of this film would be enough to make me stay away from the multiplex. However, a drought of films is one of the worst things to happen to a movie lover. Two weeks without a film in the big dark room addled my decision making abilities and I decided to give it a try. Big mistake. Simply put, World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles (BLA(h)) is just an appallingly bad sci-fi action film. It is shamelessly derivative, "borrowing" rather liberally from several better films. The plot is a rip off from Independence Day. The cinema vérité technique is “reminiscent” of Cloverfield and there are bits of War of the Worlds and Aliens thrown in for good measure. To put it mildly, there is not a speck of originality anywhere in sight in this monstrosity.

It is difficult to describe the plot maintaining a straight face. What is thought to be a meteor shower turns into an alien invasion on major coastal cities around the world. Obviously, they are here for our natural resources. Sound familiar? We meet war weary, conflicted but super competent Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), his senior Lt. Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) and their band of All-American boneheads carved out of cardboard who just happen to be the perfect mix of Whites, Blacks, Latinos and Asians. One of them could even have a career as a double for Eminem. Their mission is it to evacuate civilians (which include Michael Pena, Bridget Moynahan and of course, three little kids) from Los Angeles before a “Bomb Drop” destroys the area completely. On the way, they are ambushed by aliens and run into another bunch of soldiers which includes the fireball Michelle Rodriguez. Together, they must fight the Battle of Los Angeles and face the unknown enemy.

The script of the movie is painfully clichéd with several cringe inducing dialogues in each and every scene. The attempts at “character building” are just painful to watch and the dramatic sequences are laughably bad. Lt. Martinez is basically a nicer version of Lt. Gorman from Aliens. The languorous pacing is another problem. It takes too long to deliver too little. The entire first half hour is wasted in introducing all the characters. The film struggles to keep the audience's attention throughout. A movie like this should ideally have clocked in at under 100 minutes instead of the bloated two hours run time.

Most importantly however, BLA breaks one crucial rule of alien invasion film: the aliens must be formidable and awesome. One of the most brilliant bits of Independence Day was that the aliens were just as mean, diabolical and menacing as they looked. Here, the aliens look dumb, act absurdly and despite all their cool gadgetry, woefully lack the ability to aim. Their designs and conception are ugly, largely unoriginal and clearly "inspired". Also, the wastage of the talented cast, particularly Michelle Rodriguez, arguably the finest female action star in Hollywood today, is just criminal.

The production work is good, but not great. The hand held camera approach neither provides the visceral, immersive experience that it aims for nor does it create the tension and intensity that was there in Cloverfield. The special effects are strictly ordinary. In terms of action sequences, they fall into two categories: routine and dull or absolutely nonsensical. There are two notable exceptions to this though: the petrol pump scene and the battle on the freeway. Those moments are surprisingly inventive and pretty damn cool.

Ultimately, BLA is an unoriginal, badly scripted and weakly executed sci-fi action film that is an insult to its genre. It is dumb, predictable and a rare kind of film: one in which I strongly considered walking out of within the first fifteen minutes. One may say that the movie will appeal to hardcore action fans. However, any true fan of action movies would know the great ones well and easily see this film for what it is: a ham-fisted, loud and bloated cog job.

Rating: 1.5/5

Oscars: Inside Job (2010): Impeccable!

2011-02-28T23:53:00.000-08:00

"Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong,"

- Charles Ferguson, Director, Inside Job

In 2007-2008, the fall in the housing market perpetrated an unprecedented Crisis that brought the world on the verge of complete and total meltdown. Trillions of dollars were lost and with it, millions of people unemployed. Countries like Iceland were bankrupted and U.S. debt doubled. Some countries witnessed serious political changes, upheavals even, while others saw economic and social crises. The Crisis left no one unaffected, except, as Inside Job argues, the people who perpetrated it; namely, corporate executives at investment banking firms like Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Chase and more.

Narrated by the politically active and sincere Matt Damon, Inside Job begins with the story of Iceland and its journey from a geologically rich, progressive and idyllic country having an “end of history” moment to a bankrupt nation with debts 10 times the size of its Gross Domestic Product. The film then shifts focus to New York and Washington where all the action ensued and tells a tale of uninhibited greed, lust, sex, drugs and corruption that makes Oliver Stone’s Wall Street films look like Disney movies. It is a chilling account of how the financial services industry has committed frauds with alarming regularity on an increasing scale. These include not only frauds on the market and investors but also violation of international norms by laundering money and providing funding to dubious projects. Each time, it has paid fines and promised to make amends before regressing into the same routine on an even larger scale precipitating into the 2008 Crisis. The film provides an insightful look into the unchecked corporate greed that formed its foundation and gives a sharp critique of the bonus culture in the financial industry and its consequences.

The strength of the film lies in its research. It is based on facts, documents, academic and journalistic writings, and the testimony of some of the brightest minds in law, politics, business and economics today. Further, it also provides testimonies from some of the people who were squarely in the middle of the action like Eliott Spitzer, Jerome Fons, Frederic Mishkin and others. These interviews, media clippings and various bits of evidence are carefully pieced together by director Charles Fergusson and the result is a powerful, engaging and sweeping narrative that, in just less than 110 minutes, provides a detailed and clear understanding of how and why the Crisis happened. As a person who has researched in this area in some detail, I was quite satisfied by the arguments forwarded and the opinions expressed by Fergusson. For a layman, this is a particularly enlightening film with the right mix of shock, humour and indignation.

It is easy to dismiss Inside Job as one sided. However, it is hard to deny that this is an intelligent, sharp and incisive look into the 2008 Crisis; its causes and consequences. This is a work of angry humanism that criticizes both, Republicans and Democrats for pandering to Wall Street raiders at a tremendous human cost. For a layman, this film is a brilliant place to start understanding what exactly happened and why and at the end of the day, it is hard to deny that these executives were irresponsible, and very possibly even complicit to consciously defrauding the public of trillions of dollars.

Rating: 4/5

Oscars: True Grit (2010)

2011-02-27T22:36:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Joel and Ethan Coen’s version of the wild West. There is no John Wayne here; nor is there a Clint Eastwood. Thankfully, no Will Smith or Kevin Kline either. There are no grand entrances or larger than life characters or smart lines. No, this is a reimagining offered by the Coens: grim and gritty; harsh and unflinching; a West where white men rule; blacks and Indians are mistreated as a matter of fact and determined little girls are given a good beating for being that way. However, despite its grimness, this is the most conventionally entertaining film by the Coen Brothers that we are likely to get.

True Grit is a story set in Arkansas about a young 14 year old girl Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) who recruits the foul, boozy but competent Federal Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to catch and bring to justice the outlaw Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) who killed her father and has fled into the Indian Territory. Also in pursuit of Tom Chaney is the Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) who intends to bring him to justice for the murder of a Senator in Texas. Together, they must work through the treacherous terrain to catch the merciless Chaney.

In terms of story, True Grit lacks novelty. Also, the pacing may be too languorous for many people. But the patient viewer will be rewarded. The strength of the film lies in the steady direction of the Coen Brothers and the performances of all the actors. The Coens recreate the West with great emphasis on atmosphere and detail. The film is exquisitely shot and produced with a careful eye. The costumes and production design are fabulous in their authenticity and details. The script is remarkably somber, intense and maintains an air of tension and peril throughout. The Coen Brothers direct the film with a sure hand and provide an intelligent and powerful experience.

The film also benefits tremendously from some splendid performances. Jeff Bridges is brilliant as Rooster Cogburn. He is foul, arrogant and disgusting and yet, not for a minute, detestable. Matt Damon is competent as always. Some of the finest moments in the film are when Bridges and Damon’s characters engage in a battle of egos. However, the one standout performance in the enterprise comes from Hailee Steinfeld who is absolutely riveting as Mattie. She plays her part with remarkable ease, stealing the thunder from Bridges and Damon in several sequences. She is an absolute delight to watch as a girl who is an interesting mix of uncharacteristic intelligence, sense of duty, determination and sheer naïveté who must make her way in a man’s world that dismisses her outright on account of her age and gender.

Ultimately, although I am not a big fan of Westerns, True Grit is a good example of fine film making. It is arguably the most accessible of the Coen Brothers films and though unlike their previous works, benefits from their attention to atmosphere and detail. Anchored by some fantastic acting, particularly the performance of newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, the film proves to be an engaging, at times, intriguing tale of retribution and a mighty fine Western.

Rating: 3.5/5

7 Khoon Maaf (2011): A Surreal Masterpiece

2011-02-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

Russian roulette is not the same without a gun,

And baby when its love, if it ain’t rough, it isn’t fun.

- Poker Face, Lady Gaga

7 Khoon Maaf is a love story, or rather, seven attempts at one. The seventh attempt could be regarded as a success depending on how you choose to see it. Critics have been decidedly divided on the film with several middling reviews. However, in my humble opinion, this is a deranged masterpiece; one of the boldest, most inventive and yet, inexplicably poignant film to come out in recent years in Hindi cinema; and a testament to the fact that Indian critics know little, if anything, about cinema. It is a powerful exploration of the masculine and the feminine; of attraction, love, romance and betrayal. It is dark, macabre, vivid and comical in a very unique way. Certainly not for the conservative or the faint hearted, this is genre bending, boundary pushing Bollywood at its finest. Quite honestly, it is a film experience that will not be forgotten easily.

The story is of Susanne Anna Marie Johannes (Priyanka Chopra) and is told by Arun (Vivaan Shah) a boy who grew up with her; watching, idolizing, coveting, and ultimately, unconditionally loving her. It is about Susanne’s quest for love and her appetite for murder as she marries 6 times: first with Edmond Rodrigues, the army man (Neil Nitin Mukesh), Jimmy, the rock star (John Abraham), Mohammed, the poet (Irrfan Khan), Nikolai, the Russian (Aleksandr Dyachenko), Keematlal, the cop (Anu Kapoor) and finally Madhusudhan Da, the doctor (Naseerudin Shah). Along the way, she is assisted by a butler, a housemaid (Usha Uthup) and a one eyed jockey. However, this is a story of Susanne’s seven husbands, right? For that, you have to see the film.

As a storyteller, Vishal Bhardwaj takes huge risks in his sixth outing. This is an ambitious film, even by his self-imposed standards and he delivers spectacularly at every step. He somehow manages to maintain a strength and consistency in the narrative despite the disparate elements and characters. The various parts come together remarkably as a whole. Vishal also successfully walks a very fine line between exercising restraint and going crazy. In terms of writing, the dialogues are alternately, hilarious and haunting in places. The characters are clearly defined irrespectively of the screen time they get. The use of expletives is natural , a first for Hindi cinema, and intimacy is depicted carefully, with due deference to aesthetics and emotions. Literary references are peppered throughout the script and range from Leo Tolstoy to Anatole France; from Ruskin Bond to Shakespeare.

Vishal's exploration of the relationship between Arun and Susanne is arguably, the finest segment of the enterprise. He captures the conflicting maternal instinct and sexual tension with the required maturity, humour and complexity. Basically, this is strong storytelling at its finest and is Vishal’s best work since Maqbool. There are a few flaws in the film, particularly in the penultimate reels. There are some problems of pacing as well. However, these are minor flaws in an otherwise exquisite and flawless work of art.

Technically, the film is superlative. The art work and costumes are excellent with a remarkable sense of time and place. The photography, particularly in the portions set in Kashmir, is breathtaking. The makeup is good and age transitions look natural. The music and background score fit perfectly with the content. Particularly worth mentioning is the sound recording and mixing which add extensively to the impact of several moments, both, gorgeous and grotesque.

Priyanka Chopra shows an absolutely riveting return to form after several less than mediocre projects. She is wickedly tantalizing, an unstable vixen and yet, an object of sympathy and pity. She submits to the methods of Vishal and is transformed into a formidable actress. The other actor who deserves credit is Anu Kapoor who finally gets a role that allows him to showcase his talents. He is an absolute delight to watch and like Richard Jenkins in The Visitor and Ronit Roy in Udaan, may finally get the recognition due to him after years of hosting Antakshari on Zee TV. John Abraham is gives an uninhibited and fearless performance as Jimmy and Vivaan Shah makes a confident and memorable debut as Arun, apart from looking, in the words of Asma, "so, so cute". Usha Uthup is endearing in a small role.

Ultimately, 7 Khoon Maaf plays like a Freudian dream; a fascinating exploration of Oeidpus and Electra. It is an exercise in surrealism, not meant to be seen from a cold, clinical viewpoint. Those looking for plausibility and a clear logic behind the murders, miss the point entirely. It is not a thriller but rather a deft blend of black comedy and grand tragedy. It is an eccentric masterpiece; a delightful little mindfuck; as bizarre and irrational as it is stirring and intelligent. It's not for everyone, but it definitely was for me. It’s early, but I think I may have just seen, what I think will be the best Hindi film of 2011.

Rating: 4.5/5

Oscars: The King's Speech (2010): Fantastic!

2011-02-17T21:52:00.000-08:00

There is a scene early on in The King’s Speech, where Prince Albert (Colin Firth) meets another one of many speech therapists for his stammer, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) at his rather peculiar workplace. Seated on a sofa against the wall, as Lionel tries hard to strike a conversation with the clearly uncomfortable Prince Albert, the camera focuses on the Prince placed firmly on the bottom left part of the frame and pans out such that a large part of the frame is devoted to the wall behind him, beautifully amplifying the sense of sadness, the helplessness and being trapped that Prince Albert is feeling. Despite his rather broad frame and royal stature, he looks dwarfed and defeated by a mix of circumstance, legacy and personal impediments.

Despite an already remarkable career, Colin Firth gives the performance of a lifetime as Bertie or, as the world knows him, King George VI. He plays a man who is not simply unsure or insecure; but broken. He has accumulated, without expressing, so many emotions over the years and carried them like deadweight that they now are holding him back from realising his greatness. He lost his voice to the loneliness of royal life and a friendless existence. Several failed attempts to find it again have added to this a deep seated cynicism tied in with an iron-cast ego specially bred into him through his royal upbringing. He is a promising king, a loving father and husband and a painfully difficult student. Colin Firth skilfully manoeuvres through these various layers and immerses himself into the role achieving what few actors can: transcendence. Watch closely, for you probably will be seeing the best performance of this year.

The King’s Speech is a predictable drama. But I’ll be damned if I have seen a more rousing and powerful one in recent years. The difference lies is in its direction and performances. Geoffrey Rush is perfectly cast as Lionel Logue and it is an absolute delight to watch two stalwart actors engage with each other in a battle of wits; first, as king and commoner and later, as friends. At every step of the way, he walks the line and dances the dance with Colin Firth. Helena Bonham Carter is wonderfully restrained and in parts, quirky, as the devoted and loving wife of Prince Albert.

The director, Tom Hopper, masterfully explores the duality of a royal existence, and how each part affects the other. On one hand, Prince Albert has his royal duties which he must perform and live the stuffy life of royalty. He doesn’t resent it. In fact, he regards it with reverence and an affection his brother David (Guy Pearce) would never understand. However, he is also mortified by the public appearances, the speeches and a king’s need to ingratiate himself to his peoples. On the other hand is his personal life. As a loving parent and spouse, he has the unflinching support of his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). He also has to suffer the absolute agony of not being able to convey his love to his own children. His speech impediment dramatically impacts how he sees himself in the monarchy. The exploration of English monarchy here is more intimate, personal and human than in Stephen Frears’ The Queen. He also uses the camera beautifully in several places to amplify emotions; the overpowering burden of history, legacy and the duty of living up to the hopes and expectations of a government and a people placed on Bertie’s shoulders.

As a script, the reliance on wit, situation and sarcasm for humour is a fine reminder of how much the Americans could learn from the British. Not once is Bertie’s speech impediment used for humorous relief. The writers and the director treat with the seriousness and dignity that it deserves. The writers also do well in placing the film firmly in its historical context without creating stereotypical villains or antagonists for the sake of drama. The only villain, if any, is Hitler sitting in Germany thousands of miles away. The writing has an earnestness that is all but lost in cinema. The climactic speech is glorious in its sincerity and simplicity.

Ultimately, The King’s Speech is a splendid example of fine film making. It is certainly the best acted film of the year (with the caveat that I still have to see True Grit and The Fighter) and one of the best directed. But as far as the Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay goes, my vote is still firmly with The Social Network and Inception, both of which were more difficult, ambitious and interesting stories to write and direct on screen. Nevertheless, this is a fantastic period drama, one which will inspire and overwhelm you.

Rating: 4/5

Burlesque (2010): Bad Camp

2011-02-17T20:39:00.000-08:00

Burlesque is a PG-13 movie about a burlesque club. That probably should have the first warning sign. It was designed as a debut vehicle for the diva that is Christina Aguilera. That brought back memories of Mariah Carey's Glitter which should’ve been the other warning sign. Nevertheless, the cast (which includes Stanley Tucci, Cher, Eric Dane, Alan Cumming and Kristin Bell) and the colourful and slick production work did give some hope. Alas, it was for little, if not nothing. Burlesque is light years away from being as good as a Cabaret or Chicago and just a few miles short from being regarded as so-bad-its-good. It sits uncomfortably somewhere in between.

Burlesque is the story of Iowan cowgirl Alice a.k.a. Ali (Christina Aguillera) who leaves the small town gig for the dazzling tinsel town setting of Los Angeles. With starry eyed hopes of being a singer, she looks in vain for gigs around town till she stumbles upon a club named “Burlesque” run by the vivacious and passionate Tess (Cher). As she grows from a waitress to a performer, there is the usual dose of jealousy, sabotage, romance with even a we’re-losing-the-club subplot thrown in with several attagirl Ali moments throughout.

There are two important rules of any cabaret musical and Burlesque breaks both of them. First, the music must be foot-tapping and memorable. Despite the fact that Aguilera’s mutant lungs are put to good use, the tunes are largely mediocre and instantly forgettable. Apart from the title track and “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me”, the remaining songs are mostly indistinguishable from each other. Secondly, a burlesque/cabaret act (even in a PG-13 movie) must be tantalising, bold and an absolute tease. Think of the Cell Block Tango in Chicago and you will know what I mean. However, the acts in Burlesque are mundane, boring even where the only attempt to push the PG-13 rating is in the costumes, which are as minimalist as they come. Although the staging of the individual numbers is pretty impressive, they are again similar to each other and lost their appeal fairly quickly. There is little sizzle and even lesser life in the acts themselves. Worse still, the script is banal, devoid of wit and riddled with cringe-inducing dialogues which don't help things at all.

The only saving grace of the film is the camaraderie between Tess and Ali on the one hand and Tess and Sean on the other. In their respective roles, both Cher and Christina Aguilera are better than expected and share a great rapport and comfort level. Stanley Tucci, as usual, is so effortlessly endearing that his moments with Cher soar. Kristin Bell’s bitch act is routine and Cam Gigandet’s bartender sum aspiring musician role is just painful to watch. Eric Dane's ruthless builder act, though charming, is overtly familiar and hence, exceedingly dull.

Burlesque has the heart of a campy, silly B-grade chick flick but the look and ambitions of an A-list Hollywood film. Ultimately, it fails rather spectacularly at both and is certainly not worth the money or the time.

Rating: 1.5/5

Patiala House (2011): Good Old-Fashioned Entertainment

2011-02-12T05:11:00.000-08:00

How much ever new age and path-breaking Bollywood gets, one cannot deny that the family drama has a special place there. Before the ghisa pita garbage we now endure on television, there was cinema with its interesting exploration of the ideas of family, responsibility and relationships. Since the 50s, there have been several film makers who have explored families, their problems and depicted them on the screen with varying degrees of success. From Shakti Samanta to Yash Chopra, from Sooraj Barjatiya to Vikramaditya Motwane; each storyteller has brought his own style to the genre. Further, despite the advent of technology and Western influences, there are several Indians who even today, relate strongly to the idea of family and the values associated with it. Celebrating these values, with the backdrop of migration, patriotism and cricket is Patiala House.

Patiala House is the story of Gattu (Akshay Kumar) who is prohibited from playing cricket for the English cricket team by his father, Gurtej (Rishi Kapoor), who has nothing but hatred for the white folk after bitter experiences with combating racism in the UK. Together with their large family, they live in Patiala House in Southall, London, where the people lead claustrophobic lives under the restrictive regime of Gurtej and resent Gattu for engendering this kind of control. However, an opening in the English cricket team and the entry of a free-spirited and encouraging girl, Simran (Anushka Sharma), revives dormant hopes, aspirations and gives courage to Gattu and the rest of Patiala House to assert themselves and live their dreams.

Patiala House explores several themes like culture and patriotism in a modern world and cricket. However, its central theme remains the conflict between collective family values and individual aspirations, quite well encapsulated in the struggle of Gattu. The film remains steadfastly faithful to the theme throughout and never strays away from it for too long. The writing is fresh, for the most part; the characters are endearing and the humour is situational. Nikhil Advani shows remarkable improvement, both as a writer and as a storyteller, over the painful Salaam-e-Ishq and the downright disastrous Chandni Chowk to China.

What is most striking about the film, however, is its ability to adapt these age old themes in a modern setting. Its take on patriotism and what it means to be Indian is quite refreshing and is a marked departure from the earlier depictions of patriotism in Hindi cinema. It shows remarkable restraint and intelligence in this area and consciously refrains from any jingoistic sentiment. In doing so, it is almost revolutionary of sorts. Even its take on family values is old-fashioned but with a strong progressive sentiment that is likely to strike a chord with many audience members. The music is fresh with a very earthy Punjabi feel and the production work is remarkable in its authenticity; whether it is in depicting middle class/upper middle class London or cricket, which also benefits from the appearance of a number of real life cricketers like Nasir Hussain, Symonds, David Gower and several others.

However, there are flaws in the film. There are parts where the writing is weak, particularly in the second half and dilutes the impact of the film. There are moments that lack in impact and others which are guilty of overkill. The film doesn't soar to dizzying heights or has you jumping on your feet like a Bend It Like Beckham or a Chak De India. Nikhil Advani still faces problems of pacing and the film exceeds its ideal runtime by at least 15-20 minutes. Also, the placement of Laung Da Lashkara could have been done much better.

In terms of performances, Patiala House belongs to two people. Akshay Kumar gives one of the best performances of his career as Gattu. He underplays the character to perfection, internalizing his anguish and showing his pain only through silent tears. It's early in the year, but this is certainly likely to be counted as one of the finest performances of 2011 and a remarkable return to form for the failing actor. The other person who makes this enterprise worth every cent is Rishi Kapoor who strikes the perfect note as the difficult and often obnoxious father. He is fiery without going over the top and brings dignity and poise to the role. Anushka Sharma lights up the screen effortlessly and Dimple Kapadia, even with a few words, is grace personified. In the supporting acts, Hard Kaur in a de-glamourized avatar and Jeneva Talwar as Gattu's expecting sister-in-law are a treat to watch.

I personally really liked Patiala House. It made me laugh, cry and firmly root for Gattu. But I know I was, and am likely to remain, in a minority in this regard, especially among the youth. It's no Kal Ho Na Ho, although it could have been. But I enjoyed it for what I was, rather than lament what it wasn't. It is a fresh and progressive; earnest and optimistic look at old-fashioned family values with a strong emotional core and valiant performances from Akshay Kumar and Rishi Kapoor. For that, it definitely deserves a viewing with the entire family.

Rating: 3.5/5

Sanctum (2011): Fierce Nature, Feeble Humans

2011-02-06T05:53:00.000-08:00

I am not a big fan of 3D. I think it rarely adds any value to a movie going experience and in most cases, takes away from it as the colours get dim and the movies look less than spectacular. Further, it is easy to label a small film starring little known actors as a Steven Spielberg or James Cameron “Production” to fetch a respectable opening. However, no such film to my knowledge has ever managed to provide the same kind of quality entertainment that is usually associated with these names. Therefore, I had more than a few reservations about Sanctum walking into the cinema hall. Thankfully, however, the film manages to be surprisingly entertaining, in 3D even, if one can get past the human stick figures and their mundane, even laughable, communication.

Sanctum is about a bunch of divers who are exploring an underwater cave system in Papua New Guinea, one of the last (and largest) remaining unexplored in the world. We meet the tough lead diver Frank (Richard Roxburgh), his son Josh (Rhys Wakefield), the smarmy financier and adventurer Carl (Ioan Gruffudd), his mountaineering fiancé Victoria (Alice Parkinson) and their band of merry men. An unexpectedly early storm starts flooding the cave thereby cutting off their exit route, forcing them to do deeper and deeper into the cave to find an alternate exit.

The first thing that strikes you about the film is the photography. To put it simply, it is breathtaking. The production quality is high and the underwater sequences are exquisitely shot. The quality of the 3D is surprisingly good, though not perfect, given the dark and grim colour palette of the film. There are a few times when one is clueless as to what is going on as the actors are too busy trying to burst out of the screen than be clear about their movements. However, thankfully, these moments are outnumbered by several others where one is awestruck by the visual beauty of the film. Another factor that deserves special mention is the original score by David Hirschfelder (a popular Australian composer with several major films to his credit) which is tense, exotic, adventurous and melancholic in equal measure.

The story and screenplay, by themselves, are fairly weak. The friction between Frank and Josh is routine. Carl is smug and charming, but once again, nothing that we’ve not seen in several films before. The stock characters are on a strictly need to use basis. The dialogues are laughably bad at places, so much so, that you are left wondering whether the screenwriters confused “men in cave” with “cavemen” and chose to accordingly write their dialogues in Troll instead. In terms of performance, the actors don’t even try to act particularly well although Rhys Wakefield (The Black Balloon) shows some promise and would be interesting to see in the hands of a tougher director.

However, what it lacks in human drama, Sanctum largely makes up for in action pieces and thrills. Director Alister Grierson captures the grimness and claustrophobia of the caves perfectly and almost consistently delivers white-knuckle, intense moments that keep the viewer involved throughout.Moreover, he does so without resorting to cheap thrills like throwing in mean fish, excessive gore, nudity or other plot devices for tension. One can see the influence of Cameron and references to his own films in a few sequences. However, this is certainly more out of reverence than imitation. He seems most comfortable when he is busy showcasing the beautiful and terrible sides of nature’s fury and weakest when he is asking us to invest in the human characters.

Overall, Santum is not recommended to people with severe claustrophobia or aquaphobia; people who get off on intellectual gobbledygook alone or those that are put off by intense/action films. For the rest of you out there, Sanctum is an entertaining, thrilling, though largely generic, entry into the man versus nature genre. If you can look past the feeble humans and just enjoy the fierceness of nature, this is well worth the price of admission.

Rating: 3/5

Oscars: Black Swan (2010)

2011-02-04T00:08:00.000-08:00

Few directors in Hollywood can rightfully claim to be ambitious (Kubrick, Nolan, Fincher, Tarantino and Spielberg to name some). Even fewer can boast of a more diverse and varied filmography as Darren Aronofsky. In five films, he has experimented wildly with themes and techniques. He is one of the few directors who employs visuals rather than dialogue to convey his ideas and themes. Thematically, he explored loneliness and emptiness in the context of drug addiction (Requiem for a Dream), birth, death and existentialism (The Fountain) and ageing, poverty and the desperate comfort of company (The Wrestler). Technically, he provided us with some of the most memorable and varied visuals of the last decade in two of the above films while in his last effort, he stripped it down to its bare essentials focussing instead, on the actors and their performances instead. His films always a feast for the eyes and the mind; though ultimately flawed. His latest work, Black Swan, however, is near perfect exquisite work of art. It is his finest, most provocative and intense work till date and may just be his masterpiece.

Lose Yourself. Get in touch with your wild side. These ideas get a frightful form in Black Swan. Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a ballerina for a ballet company run by Thomas (Vincent Cassel). She is hardworking, sweet and innocent and lives with her overbearing mother (Barbara Hershley), a former ballerina who gave up her career to raise Nina. The Company is preparing for its production of “Swan Lake”, a ballet about an innocent virginal Odette, the Swan Queen who can only become human on discovering true love. But when she does find her prince, he is seduced by her evil twin Odile, the Black Swan and only in death does Odette find freedom. Nina lands the lead role of Odette/Odile replacing the former star (Winona Ryder). But while she is perfect as Odette, she is under a lot of pressure to bring out her dark, lusting side as Odile on stage. The quest for perfection, the pressure from her mother and the director and the arrival of competition (Mila Kunis) triggers dormant, dark emotions inside Nina that test her sanity and threaten to destroy her.

In terms of technique, the film is a very interesting mix of Requiem… and The Wrestler. Aronofsky provides a visceral film about a tragic central character while employing dazzling, dizzying and unforgettable visuals. The depiction of Nina, as she gradually loses control, is simultaneously intimate, awe-inspiring and terrifying. Thankfully, Aronofsky exercises remarkable restraint throughout and protects the film from being hammy or over the top, which it could so easily have been. The contrasts, between Odette and Odile, the restrained and the wild, the ugly and the beautiful, are beautifully symbolised in the costumes and the production design throughout the film. The editing is stunning and the abrupt scene transitions serve the narrative perfectly. The blurring of lines between the real, the hallucination and the dream is deftly achieved without disrupting the smooth narrative. Every scene, including the conclusion, is open to interpretation and intellectual heavy lifting has rarely been a more rewarding experience. The music of Clint Mansell adds to the atmosphere extremely well. Basically, the meaning and brilliance of this film is in its details.

Coming to the performances, Natalie Portman is a frontrunner for the Best Actress Oscar this year, and for good reason. She plays Aronofsky’s game of toeing the line between flamboyance and restraint effortlessly capturing Nina’s conflicted emotions with remarkable finesse. Her portrayal of Nina, as she, like the proverbial Swan Queen, desperately battles her darker self, is a formidable mix of innocence, beauty, self-loathing and dementia. Her performance is as nuanced as it is bold and uninhibited, in a way few mainstream actors would ever dare. This is the performance of a lifetime and must be seen to be believed.

Mila Kunis is great as Nina’s nemesis who sets the screen aflame with her reckless, boundless sensuality which Nina so sorely lacks. Vincent Cassel is marvelous as the charming, seductive and manipulative director. But in the supporting acts, its Barbara Hershley you remember the most who is creepy and terrifying as the overbearing, difficult mother who wants nothing more than seeing her child on top, no matter what the consequences.

Ultimately, for all its theatricality and mesmerising visuals, the true horror of Black Swan lies in its themes, which are immediately identifiable and relatable; several people deal with overbearing controlling parents, the burning desire to win, to be on top, to be perfect, to lose control and be a little irresponsible. Nina is simply a larger than life embodiment of these ideas and emotions. And what a terrible beauty she is!

Rating: 4/5.

Dhobi Ghat (2011): In Search of Meaning

2011-01-21T10:40:00.000-08:00

Hindi cinema is changing at a rapid pace. More and more new filmmakers with promise are entering the arena. Each has his/her own distinct style and all have their specific influences. Some have been highly successful, others not quite so much. However, all show promise and make you look forward to their movies. The latest entrant in this arena is Kiran Rao. However, I wish I could be as enthusiastic about her debut film.

The stories: Shai (Monica Dogra) is an investment banker with a penchant for photography. She meets Arun (Aamir Khan), a lonely painter with Mumbai as his muse and makes a connection. She also meets Munna a.k.a. Sohaib (Prateik), a dhobi who serves both, Arun and Shai and quickly becomes friends with him. He aspires to be an actor someday. In the meanwhile, Arun uncovers some video tapes in his new house belonging to the previous owner, Yasmin (Kriti Malhotra) and immediately finds inspiration in her stories. Art imitates life and we see these lives connect with each other in the city that is Mumbai.

In terms of storytelling, the influence of Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu (Amorres Perros, 21 Grams, Babel) is quite evident in Kiran Rao’s style. However, while she seems remarkably comfortable with the methods of the acclaimed filmmaker, meaning remains elusive. Her film never amounts to more than the sum of its parts. While her characters are real and fully realised, their interactions with each other are far too fleeting; too momentary, too punctuated and vague to make a real connection with or provide a larger meaning to the viewer. If only Kiran Rao, the writer, had strengthened these connections and provide a larger context, then we would be looking at a masterpiece. None of the stories are given a clear or satisfactory conclusion. Without this, it is little more than scattered stories; interesting individually but pointless as a whole. The film is subtle to a fault. Further, for a film that attempts to be realistic, the relationship between two key protagonists of the film (Munna and Shai) is anything but real. It is hard to believe that an affluent investment banker could so easily forge a friendship with a dhobi, that too, without a hint of opposition or distaste from her posh friends and family.

Nevetheless, there are three factors that work in favour of the film. First, it is a loving portrait of the city that is Mumbai. Never has the city been captured on camera more beautifully; from the posh and modern Marine Drive and Walkeshwar to the seedier parts of Mohammed Ali Road and Grant Road. It is a gorgeous, intelligent and whole-hearted tribute to the older parts of the city, bursting with history, culture and nostalgia. The beauty is in the details, and there are plenty. It presents Mumbai with all its contradictions: the freedom and the claustrophobia, the triumphs and the frustrations, the ostentatious and the pretentious, the beautiful and the disgusting.

The second thing that works greatly in favour of the film is the background score of Gustavo Santaolalla (Brokeback Mountain, Motorcycle Diaries, Babel). Interspersed with some beautiful Hindustani classical music, it provides some much needed depth to the otherwise sparse screenplay and sets the tone of the film perfectly in several places. Its minimalism (a key feature of the maestro’s work generally) lends volumes more than the characters do.

The final point is the performance of Prateik. The man gives a career-making performance as Munna. He effortlessly delivers a nuanced, layered performance as the sweet, innocent and charming lad toughened by his harsh realities and steals the thunder from all of his co-stars. Although his character is not very well developed, it is the bravura performance of this young actor that breathes life into the film. He is the underdog and you can’t help but root for him. Another performance that remains with the viewer is that of Kriti Malhotra as Yasmin. Easily the most well sketched character in the enterprise, she draws you into her little world and anchors the film in meaning.

Ultimately, Dhobi Ghat is something worth seeing, but not celebrating. It is remarkable, but not memorable. It has more in common with the flawed Babel than with Amorres Perros. Rao has a fresh voice, but she's not sure of what she wants to say. Her film is good, but lacks the emotional depth and is too vague; too scattered to be considered great.

Rating: 3/5

No One Killed Jessica (2011): A Qualified Success

2011-01-10T04:19:00.000-08:00

It was 1999. There was an insurgency in Kargil; people were preparing for the new millennium; India had gone nuclear a year earlier; internet was still in its infancy and the world was at the footsteps of the dot com boom, and bust. In this year, Jessica Lall, a little known aspiring model and bartender, was shot dead by a cabinet minister's son when she refused to serve him a drink at a popular Delhi nightclub. There were 300 witnesses, but only 7 admitted to have been there. These included the owner of the club, her daughter, an aspiring model and a cleaner. As Jessica’s sister, Sabrina struggled to secure justice for her sister, she realised that this was going to be an uphill task as she faced corruption, nepotism and naked display of power. It was supposed to be an “open and shut” case. As the trial court judgment came out, the world was shocked and the media joined Sabrina to take on the system.

This is the tale that is depicted in No One Killed Jessica. There are several films which have had a similar plot Countless masala movies come to mind involving corrupt policemen, politicians and judiciary. The only difference here is that this is not just a story; this is a true story. The murder happened; justice was denied; a happy and well knit family was destroyed and 10 years of their life were wasted in the quest for justice. Therein lies the strength of the film. You identify with the events; in a small way, you may even have been a part of it.

In terms of storytelling, the director uses the same technique as The Social Network. This is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama. It emphasises on gripping storytelling rather than slavishly following facts and suitably fictionalises characters and plot points for the sake of entertainment. Nevertheless, it follows the facts where they matter. The recreation of the sequence of events, particularly the murder itself, is crafted in such meticulous detail that it has a chilling effect on the viewer. It even uses the contemporary events that shaped the public opinion on the case, like the release of Rang De Basanti. Meera (Rani Mukerjee) is an amalgamation of a legion of reporters who worked tirelessly on the issue. Sabrina (Vidya Balan) is depicted as a determined but helpless sister whose entire life is destabilized with that one bullet. Doing so helps give the film a tight narrative and greater dramatic force as we see the two suitably contrasted women (battle against the system. The writers canonize Jessica (played by Myra) thereby elevating her from an ordinary victim to an embodiment of the modern, progressive, free thinking woman. The script is excellent and packs a strong emotional punch as it puts together 7 years of facts into a 140 minute runtime. The film is furiously paced, bursting at its seams with anger, irony, sarcasm and earnestness. It has resonance and relief in equal measure.

However, it falls short of perfection by a considerable margin. There are some very serious problems in the writing. First, the courtroom sequences leave a lot to be desired. In a film that strives to be authentic, the flaky way in which the courtroom sequences are depicted is quite off putting. There are simple things that the film gets wrong. For example, one of the witnesses claims that he cannot speak Hindi. However, he seems to understand everything the investigating cop and the prosecution lawyer say in Hindi and no one points it out. Second, while the dialogues are refreshingly peppered with expletives and obscenities, there are several points where it comes across as forced, awkward and therefore, fake. I know it’s rare that one gets to here such language on screen, but must it be used so unnecessarily? The dialogues are also plagued with clichés at some points which have no place in a film like this. Particularly painful, jarring and even borderline offensive, is the killer's mother who is extremely filmy and annoying.

Thankfully, the execution by Raj Kumar Gupta is solid and helps overcome some of these flaws. The director takes giant strides as a storyteller from his first outing, Aamir. The music and background score by Amit Trivedi are fantastic and provide additional depth and meaning to the proceedings at appropriate points. The one song that stays with you though is, of course, "Dilli" which fits the film's angry tone perfectly. The production design is, by and large, authentic and the cinematography is stunning in places.

The performances are littered all across the spectrum. Vidya Balan is brilliant as the shy and closeted Sabrina who is suddenly thrust into the spotlight after her sister is murdered. She is suitably restrained and conveys far more through her eyes than her words. It would not be incorrect to say that the film belongs to her. Rani Mukerjee is good but the whole aggressive, ambitious, foul mouthed act would be better suited for a good character actor. However, the rest of the cast is plagued with theatricality. Moreover, the performances by the actors playing Jessica’s mother, the club owner and Vikram Jaisingh leave a lot to be desired. Their performances are fake, over the top and mar the dramatic impact of the film unnecessarily.

Ultimately, Indian cinema still has a lot to learn about making fact-based films, if for no other reason, then just because so few are made. However, No One Killed Jessica is certainly a step in the right direction. It is well researched, responsible, tightly scripted and brilliantly executed. It has its flaws which keep it from joining the likes of Black Friday, The Social Network and All The President’s Men. Nevertheless, it is gripping cinema and more than worth the price of admission.

Rating 3.5/5

2010: The Best and the Worst

2010-12-30T05:20:00.000-08:00

As 2010 draws to a close, I realised that it’s been quite a mediocre year in Hindi cinema. There have some moments of brilliance, but they have been few and far between. By and large, it has been a disappointing year, with big names delivering small works. But thankfully, there have also been some small names delivering big works. It’s been the year for the newcomers, who have stolen the thunder from the biggest of names. Here are, what I think were, the best Hindi films of 2010:

3. Ishqiya: Where do I begin? There is the fearless performance by Vidya Balan, the best I have seen this year from a female actor; the confident direction by Chaubey-ji, who joins the growing legion of new kids on the block; the impeccable lyrics of Gulzar who captures something highly elusive, the soul of the film, in 8 lines of poetry; Chutiyam Sulphate and other acidic lines from that genius that is Vishal. This was undoubtedly, one of the most involving, path-breaking and innovative films of 2010. It represents the changing face of Hindi cinema. And it is a beautiful face indeed.

2. My Name Is Khan: If Ishqiya and others represent innovative storytelling, MNIK was the finest example of classic Bollywood. Kajol and SRK proved that their chemistry is ageless and timeless. After over two decades in the business, they gave the best performances of their career. The film gave its audiences the best love story of the year, an unforgettable protagonist, stellar performances from the entire cast and uncharacteristically intelligent, if loose, writing on the immigrant experience in post 9/11 America. It was the only Hindi film I bothered seeing twice at the cinema; the only one I cried in like a baby, both times. This is conventional Hindi cinema at its best; unapologetically corny and emotional; epically entertaining and enlightening.

1. Udaan: Good things come in small packages; the adage finds a great example in Udaan. A quiet, raw and intimate experience, this was the best film I saw this year. A brilliant slice-of-life story; an emotionally resonant script, sharp direction and some powerhouse performances: these were the basic ingredients that went into making Udaan. But the resulting product was more; so much more. In Rohan’s poetry, we find a silent cry for people like him, whose creativity and aspirations were stifled by parental and societal pressures to conform. In Arjun, we see a desperate longing for love, attention and affection, a longing subconsciously articulated; something which even his young mind does not fully understand. In Bhairav Singh, there is a menacing villain, but one which is more complex and identifiable than the legion of one dimensional bad father figures littered across cinema. This is an important film that finds hope in the darkest places; serves as a vehicle for suicide prevention; and tells a story with the power to touch both, the children and their parents. It is passionate as it is simple. This is a far more intelligent and effective film about the pressures, pains and joys of growing up than 3 Idiots could ever be. It is entertainment, but of a very different kind. We need more of such cinema.

Other noteworthy films: Peepli [Live], Love, Sex Aur Dhokha, Dabangg, Break Ke Baad, Phas Gaya Re Obama, Raajneeti and Band Baaja Baaraat.

My list of the worst films of the year was considerably longer. But that is usually the case in both, English and Hindi cinema. However, I list the following three films, as they could have been something more, but fell way behind the mark.

3. Anjaana Anjaani: For its countless absurdities, its sexism, its humourless existence and its squandered potential. Priyanka Chopra’s character needs a crash course in self respect and Ranbir Kapoor looks more like a sub-standard model than an investment banker. They don’t have money to fly to Vegas but they have enough money to rent boats and sail to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Stupid, silly and painful to watch. This could have been an Indian Harold and Maude. Instead, it is one of the worst romantic comedies in a while, by any standard.

2. Kites: How can a film so gorgeous to look at be so shockingly awful? Inconsistent, erratic, hollow and mind-numbing, Kites was plagued with bad acting, bad music, a mediocre story and a disjointed and weak script. As a story, this is the worst kind of 80s road movie, the kind that should have never been made then, let alone now. It makes you wonder how such a script ever got accepted, let alone receive such an enormous budget. The cinematography was the best Hindi cinema can boast of; it had an artistic vision and finesse that was lacking in the rest of the film. Anurag Basu as a filmmaker, always lacked subtlety. But this was an awful film, even compared to his previous films. Hrithik Roshan is a terrific actor. But, he has never been the best judge of projects. Unfortunately, instead of getting better at it; he appears to be getting worse.

1. Raavan: Like in the case of Ishqiya, where do I begin? Was it the awful performances, the bizarre characters, the stranger story or the self-indulgent direction? It is remarkable how faithful Raavan is, at least broadly, to the Ramayana. However, unlike the epic, it has no depth, meaning or emotional resonance. The characters are awkwardly mixed with shades of gray without much thought and the actors rightly look confounded by them. Mani Ratnam gets it wrong; terribly wrong; so much so, that his previous work, Guru looks like a classic in comparison to this. He is, I think, to blame, singularly and entirely for this disaster. A.R. Rahman’s score, overall, lacks punch. Abhishek and Aishwarya both disappoint, even by their own self-imposed standards. But the fault lies in their characters more than their performances. If there could be a negative star rating, this movie would be a perfect candidate for it. Without a doubt, this is the worst film I saw this year.

Tees Maar Khan (2010): Sheila's Too Sexy For This Film

2010-12-24T06:29:00.000-08:00

Whatever one may say about her brand of cinema, there is one thing for certain: Farah Khan knows her Bollywood. She has proved, twice over, that she is the only filmmaker who can take Bollywood conventions of yore and sell them to a modern audience. She does so by unsubtly, but gently poking fun at the little quirks and details while remaining steadfastly faithful to the broader framework. Her films, for all their fun and humour, have usually a strong emotional core which Indian audiences readily take to. Her films look gorgeous and usually have tremendous entertainment value. Hers is the kind of cinema that would make Manmohan Desai and Mukul Anand proud.

However, it is hard to imagine a Farah Khan film without Shah Rukh. It’s not just the familiarity. There is a certain comfort they had, a unity of vision, which showed in her previous films. I think that is one of the prime reasons why a lot of people have been sceptical about Tees Maar Khan, despite the otherwise appealing promos. A lot is riding on it, and it’s not just the money. It is a challenge for Farah Khan not only in terms of maintaining the same entertainment value as her previous outings but also on establishing a reputation independent of Shah Rukh Khan. It is also a litmus test of sorts for Akshay Kumar who has consistently delivered increasingly bad films such that even his better ones (Action Replayy) got a cold shoulder from the audience. So, TMK carries with it the reputations of some serious heavyweights and needs to satisfy an increasingly unforgiving (and worse, indifferent) audience. The question is: does it deliver?

Tabrez Mirza Khan a.k.a. Tees Maar Khan (Akshay Kumar) is one of India’s most notorious con-artists. He steals from the rich, but does not share with the poor. In his own words, trying to catching him is like trying to save a whore’s dignity. It’s kind of pointless. Like Abhimanyu in Mahabharata, he learned his art from the womb thanks to his mother (Apara Mehta) who feasted on 70s Hindi crime movies. He is dating a half-brained wannabe actress Anya (Katrina Kaif). Now, he must pull off a seemingly impossible task: stealing fabulous treasures worth Rs. 500 crores but weighing 10,000 kgs loaded on a train on its way to Delhi to be deposited in the State Treasury for two international twin smugglers (Raghu, Rajiv). But nothing is impossible for Tees Maar Khan.

The first half of the film is tremendously good. The opening credits may offend a few but the depiction of how TMK learns his skills in the womb is original, inventive and laugh out loud funny. There are some brilliant lines and even better comic sketches which are put together into a silly but rib-tickling narrative. The jokes work throughout. Sheila Ki Jawaani sizzles, and how! The song is electric and the video by itself makes me want to recommend the film. It beautifully pays homage to one of the most iconic item numbers of all time (“Jumma Chumma De De” from Hum). Salman Khan’s cameo, while obviously gimmicky and forced, is entertaining enough to make you forget everything else. The production is fabulous. The composition of each scene in terms of costumes, art work and cinematography is a visual feast. The first hour has Farah Khan stamped all over it.

However, in the post-interval portions, things start to stagnate. Jokes fall flat. The proceedings get too dull and meandering. Thankfully, the penultimate portions featuring the heist itself are quite funny and lift the film a bit. However, the climax (which is more like an extended epilogue) is just painful to watch. Ideally, the film should have ended right after the heist. But the writers stretch an already dubious premise too far; to the point where it stops being funny. The end credits (a hallmark of Farah Khan films) lack the celebratory spirit which her first two films had. The culprit here is the team of writers (led by her husband, Shirish Kunder). It’s in moments like these that you wonder: where is Abbas Tyrewala when you need him? Only he, and maybe Farah Khan herself, can make such absurdities work. In the hands of Kunder and his team, it is a massacre that manages to destroy the what little impact the film had till that point.

In terms of performance, Akshay Kumar does the best he can to make the material funny; and he succeeds, at several points. He is a better choice over SRK for such a role and brings tremendous energy to his character. Katrina Kaif looks supremely sexy and looks perfectly natural playing a bimbo. I wonder why that is. Wait, not really. Akshaye Khanna has sub-standard material to work with but still manages to pull in a few laughs. Apara Mehta is hilarious in portions. The legion of supporting actors is sporadically funny, often dull and occasionally irritating.

Ultimately, I strongly suspect that TMK suffers from that “My Hubbie Strongest” Syndrome. Sometimes, it is not a good idea to mix family and work. Kunder is a good editor. However, he has a lot to learn in the writing department. While it is not a complete failure, TMK remains several notches below Farah Khan’s previous works. The emotional resonance is non-existent and the humour is nowhere near good enough to compensate for that. It is a half entertaining, half annoying and a wholly absurd enterprise. Houston, we have a problem.

Rating: 2/5

P.S.: There is one splendid reason to watch the film though: the trailer of Saat Khoon Maaf. It is an audacious project even for Vishal Bharadwaj and may just be the crowning glory of Priyanka Chopra. A haunting and powerful trailer, it makes you wish you were watching that film instead of this one.

TRON: Legacy (2010): A Wasted Opportunity

2010-12-17T07:28:00.000-08:00

TRON is a very iconic film of the 80s where, for the first time, audiences saw the potential that extensive use of CGI held. It involved a programmer Flynn (Jeff Bridges) who takes on a Master Control Programme, which has plans for world domination, and is digitised and transferred from the real world to the digital world (known as the Grid). There he meets some other programmes, including TRON, a programme which was specifically created to control the MCP and launches a massive attack against it. Shot in a videogame format (the kind we played in arcades as kids), visually, nothing like this film has ever been seen before, or after. Its greatest strength was to employ action movie conventions very creatively in the digital world, thereby offering a unique experience. Although as a story, it was riddled with more than a few holes, it was easy to forgive such misgivings and enjoy the experience. Today, it may look a little tacky. But, in the context of its times, despite its meagre returns, it was nothing short of revolutionary. Over time, it has gathered a considerable following not only for its stylistic visuals but also its prescient content. The term “ahead of its time” has rarely found a more appropriate example.

Now, 28 years later, Disney decided to provide a sequel to the film. As such, sequels are usually judged in comparison to the original. But here, it would be almost pointless to do so as many of the target audience of TRON: Legacy will not have seen the original (which doesn’t enjoy the mainstream popularity of, say, the Star Wars series). Hence, the lengthy background to the original film by way of an introduction. Through its trailers, the one thing that TRON: Legacy promises, both to the fans of the first and new entrants, are eye popping visuals. In the last 3 decades, CGI has undergone a sea change from new to generic technology. Today, the emphasis is not so much on the quality of the effects per se as much as it is on the imagination gone into creating them. Therefore, TRON: Legacy has a new challenge before it: can it offer something new and groundbreaking like its predecessor after all that has followed?

The premise: Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappeared 20 years ago. Some think he is dead; others think he has run away from his responsibilities towards his company, Encom, and its shareholders. Left behind is his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) who believes in his father’s causes (namely free access to technology) while Encom’s new management believes in making them pay as high a price as possible despite the efforts of Kevin’s best friend Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner). A mysterious message from his father’s old videogame arcade leads Sam to discover his father’s old office. He soon finds himself also in the Grid, reunited with his father with a new ally, Quorra (Olivia Wilde) and a new villain, Clu (also, Jeff Bridges), a programme created by Kevin in his own image who has gone rogue and taken over the Grid.

T:L cost a sizable fortune to make (a cool $200 mil) and it shows. The special effects are spectacular and beautifully build on the world created by the original film. This is one of the few movies that is, at least visually, worth watching in 3D. The set design, the programmes, the games etc. are brilliantly realised, even if they are a little short in terms of ideas. There is nothing new here per se from Tron, at least nothing good. The new bits look like they were rejected designs for Lady Gaga videos. However, they do take the ideas from the original and use modern technology to provide some truly mind blowing visuals. The soundtrack by Daft Punk is especially good maintaining a cool, yet menacing tone throughout the film and making good use of electronic pop to provide that metallic, steely, atmosphere to the proceedings, much like the Grid itself.

Unfortunately for T:L though, it falls apart in terms of story in the second hour. The premise, that starts out promisingly is destroyed under the weight of some bad ideas, terrible clichés, cringe-inducing dialogues and bad acting. It is just painful to watch the film especially in the penultimate reels because the potential here was immense. They could have taken a film that was visually iconic, but weak in content and improved it to make it something extraordinary. But instead of going anywhere near there, it creates plot holes so many and so large that it has to be seen to be believed. It falls into the trap of providing conventional action set pieces and the story itself suffers on account of that. Actually, “suffers” doesn’t even begin to describe it. The film looses any sense of coherence or originality. The character of TRON himself is just butchered. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. Every idea there has been done better in some other film. The direction is aimless and the emphasis is more on the look of a scene than its content. The dialogues are so laughably bad that the script writer(s) deserves to be shot. On the emotional front, neither the relationship between Sam and Kevin, nor that between Sam and Quorra has been properly developed. Their relationships look more lifeless and metallic than the Grid itself.

In terms of acting, Garrett Hedlund desperately needs some acting lessons. His only expressions here are stone face and constipated. The film rests to a large extent on his shoulders, and he disappoints. Olivia Wilde has to deal with a very badly written character. Jeff Bridges is excellent, both as Kevin Flynn and as Clu. The use of CGI to create a younger version of him was, I think, inspired and he essays both parts effortlessly. Michael Sheen is brilliant in a small role as a Chaplin-esque over the top, loud Zuse, an act which borders on caricature.

Ultimately, T:L is a beautiful body without a soul. It has a good first hour and an abominable second hour. It is a wasted opportunity considering the potential the premise held. It plays like a bad videogame and is just not worth the price of admission.

Rating: 2/5

Band Baaja Baraat (2010): All Weddings and No Funeral

2010-12-12T06:09:00.000-08:00

I love weddings; from the band and the baaja to the garish colours and the decorations; from the sangeet to the shenanigans; from the food to the festivities; from the rituals to the reception where 700 cousins you never know existed show up for pictures. For this reason, and a few others, Band Baaja Baraat was a thoroughly entertaining fare, much to my surprise. It lives up to its title and provides us a delightfully colourful, warm and funny look into the Great Indian Wedding, of all shapes, scales and sizes right from a wedding in a mohalla in Delhi to a royal palatial wedding in Rajasthan. Along the way, it also provides us a fun and likable love story about two wedding organizers and how their affections affect their business.

The premise: Bittoo (Ranvir Singh) is a quintessential Delhi boy. Studying at Delhi University, he spends the day being idle, gawking at Delhi women, eating bread pakodas and gatecrashing weddings. In comes Shruti (Anushka Sharma), a headstrong but fun loving girl who wants to start her own business as a wedding planner. They meet at a wedding, which she is helping organize and he is gatecrashing and soon become unlikely partners for a wedding planning business. They taste success as they organise one wedding after another. Between them, they have only one rule: there is no place for love shuv between business partners. However, romantic comedies have their own rules, before which this little rule obviously does not stand a chance.

It would not be wrong to say that this is the most solid film to come out of the Yash Raj Films banner in many years, arguably since Chak De India. Its biggest strength is that it keeps things simple and the scale appropriate. A Janakpuri wedding looks like a well done Janakpuri wedding. A palatial wedding looks like a palatial wedding. It takes us through the bylanes of the more modest areas of Delhi without being guilty of unnecessary ostentation like previous films made under the banner. The characters look and behave like they come from these sections and that helps us immediately identify and care for them.

The writing is fresh, particularly in the first half which is frothy and cackles with wit and sarcasm. As a storyteller, Maneesh Sharma keeps things straight and saves the film from any serious convolutions. He tells his story with confidence and focuses on getting the look, the performances and the timing right, in which he, by and large succeeds. The film does best in depicting the chaotic wedding planning and the growth of the business. It does stagnate in the post-interval portions as the genre conventions kick in and the obligatory sequences are done. However, the film picks up in the penultimate portions once more and cruises coolly to a satisfying conclusion. The music is good and the production design is fabulous.

In terms of performances, the film would fall like a pack of cards without the performances of the leads. Ranvir Singh proves that one needs confidence, personality and acting ability to be leading man material, and not good looks. He quickly wins you over as the crass but caring and hardworking Bittoo. Anushka Sharma gives her career’s best performance and makes us love and firmly root for Shruti Kakkar. Forget all the Kiara-s and the like, this is the quintessential modern girl with determination, confidence, an acid tongue and yet, some vulnerabilities. Anushka Sharma looks completely at ease with the character and gives a very natural performance. Together, the couple has great chemistry and they carry the film on their broad shoulders.

Ultimately, there are several reasons to recommend Band Baaja Baraat. If you like weddings, this is a delightful treat of one kind of Indian wedding after another. If you like Delhi, few films have captured the essence of what it is to live in and be from Delhi than this film. The lingo and the characters are straight out of day to day life. Finally, if you like romantic comedies, this is a lovely little exercise in pure formula that should keep you entertained mostly throughout. This isn’t groundbreaking cinema. But it surely is good cinema.

Rating: 3.5/5

Guzaarish (2010): Good's Not Good Enough

2010-12-10T00:57:00.000-08:00

Sanjay Leela Bhansali brings dreams to life on celluloid. He is perhaps the only Indian director that can qualify for such a statement. In each of his films, good or bad, right from Khamoshi to Saawariya, he has an eye for visuals that is unparalleled in Hindi cinema. This makes his cinema, for better or for worse, unique. Sometimes, his visuals can add considerable depth to the story as in the case of Black. In other times, it can overpower the story altogether as in Saawariya. However, irrespective of the film in question, a common thread throughout Bhansali's considerable repertoire (both, in terms of accolades and money) is the weak scripting. At best, the scripts he co-authors and works with range from well-intentioned (Khamoshi: The Musical) to the downright deplorable (Saawariya). Further, his direction, though technically flawless, is loud and hammy in technique. Black is the only film where the performances and the sensitivity and daring in addressing the subject matter overcome these flaws. It is, in my opinion, not only his one masterpiece but also his only truly memorable film. However, his films are usually an uneven balance of style and substance.

In terms of subject matter, Guzaarish is the kind of film one would expect Bhansali to make after Black. It is a bigger challenge as it involves greater complexities and nuances. The topic of Euthanasia is not, in any way, an easy one, especially in cinema. The challenges are not only emotional but also political, ethical and legal. The final product we get, is a mixed bag.

Ethan (Hrithik Roshan), once a world famous magician is now a quadriplegic after a near-fatal accident at one of his performances 15 years ago. He is paralysed the neck below and is entirely dependent on his nurse, Sofia (Aishwarya Rai) for his care. Sofia cares for him more than a friend, a wife or a lover and has even given up on her marriage to attend to him. He is dying as his organs give way one by one. He calls upon his lawyer friend, Devyani (Shernaz Patel) to file a petition in court for euthanasia. What ensues is a legal battle where a man seeks a right to die within his fundamental right to live.

Visually, the film is stunning, as is expected. Each frame is a canvas and on it, Bhansali and his cinematographer paint a portrait so beautiful that it is simply breathtaking to behold. Some have criticized the film for looking unrealistic and nothing like what Goa and its people are really like. These people I think miss the point entirely of Bhansali's films. His films take place in moments largely suspended in space and time. The costumes, the sets and the production are meant to provide a surrealist look and add to the visual appeal. It is this surrealism that adds a certain amount of universality to the story. Guzaarish is no exception where Aishwariya Rai appearance seems to be a cross between gypsy and Victorian styles. The house is again Gothic/Victorian in Architecture. A wide palate of dark, deep, moody colours is used to paint the visuals and it helps set the atmosphere of the film well. Ethan's memories as a magician take place in the same theatre in front of similar, if not the same crowds. This is because the importance for him is not so much because of the place or the people before whom he performed but simply the joy and thrill he got from the performance itself. The only time his audience ever mattered was when he performed his first magic trick. The music, also by Bhansali, is an eclectic mix of styles ranging from Westerns classics like Charlie Chaplin's "Smile" to Arab and Turkish influenced tunes.

On the emotional front, Bhansali manages to give us characters we care for and creates some truly wonderful cinematic moments. The sequences involving Ethan's first magic trick, for example, are wonderful as much as they are painful. However, it is hardly an unqualified success as the script falls prey to loud, painful emotional overkill, especially in the later reels. Although the relationships are well defined and carefully developed, the abandonment of any semblance of restraint in the second half of the film severely dilutes the impact. While Ethan's individual relationships with Sofia, Devyani and Omar are beautifully defined with considerable maturity and complexity, on the whole, especially in the collective moments, the film falls prey to severe emotional spasms with one too many passionate outbursts. Also, the one relationship that deserved more was that between Ethan and his mother (Nafisa Ali). The potential there was immense and the ease with which she acquiesces to the idea of mercy killing for Ethan seems a tad unbelievable.

There are problems in terms of plotting as well. The changes in public opinion hardly seem believable. The legal portions, while somewhat convincing in the courtroom, become really half baked once the drama shifts to Ethan's house. The authenticity of the proceedings is done great disservice by shoehorning emotional moments. Further, going beyond the emotional issues, the political and ethical dimensions are so poorly explored here that the film comes off as amateurish, a fall in standards for Bhansali who addressed some difficult and complex issues in Black. By couching Ethan's plea for Euthanasia simply in terms of personal choice, the film stops short of exploring the real issues of why a person would opt for mercy killing like dying with dignity etc.

In terms of performances, Bhansali succeeds in extracting some wonderful ones from the entire cast. I have said this before and I will say it again. He is the only director capable of extracting a powerful performance from Aishwarya Rai. She was stunning in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. Guzaarish is no exception. Here, she has a chemistry with Hrithik Roshan that goes far beyond the damp couple that they were in Jodhaa Akbar. Their relationship is more complex, more endearing. Hrithik gives a lovely restrained performance. The still water runs deep act suits his character perfectly. One can't say that he takes giant strides as an actor or manages a performance like Rani and Amitabh's in Black but it's nevertheless a very good performance. However, the real find in this film is Aditya Roy Kapur who pitches in a solid performances as the relentless, determined but extremely endearing Omar. He demonstrates talent both as a comic and dramatic actor. Shernaz Patel is one of my favourite character actors today. I have seen her both on stage and screen and she is a dazzling actress who deserves more footage. Here also, she excels as a friend who is called upon to put aside her personal opinions and fight for an ailing man's right to die with dignity. Rajat Kapoor, her partner in several stage productions, is wasted as the opposition lawyer.

Overall, Guzaarish is an improvement over Saawariya and yet, several notches below Black. Although it boasts of a daring story with wonderful visuals and performances by the entire cast, it is severely afflicted with emotional overkill that takes away from the political and ethical dimensions of the theme and robs some great individual sequences of their gravitas. It is like an omelet with too much oil in it. Its failure has been likened to Guru Dutt's Kaagaz Ke Phool. However, I think it has more in common with Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra's Delhi-6: well intentioned, in places good even, but nowhere near the standards that the material could have reached. But maybe it's just me: Euthansia is very important to me not only as a liberal but also on a more personal level. I have seen someone suffer like Ethan in the film with no escape and therefore, have some idea what that feels like. Maybe that's why I think a topic like this deserves a better film than this overproduced, over the top film. If you don't mind watching a film trying to attach a vacuum cleaner to your tear-ducts, be my guest. If not, do yourself a favour: rent Million Dollar Baby or Mar Adentro instead.

Rating: 2.5/5

Anjaana Anjaani (2010)

2010-12-08T05:08:00.000-08:00

Anjaana Anjaani is perhaps one of the most annoying films I have seen in recent memory. That is not so much because it is a terrible film but because it had potential to be infinitely better. It is an excellent example of how you cannot take an offbeat and quirky premise and employ mainstream romantic comedy conventions to tell the tale. It just does not work. For that reason, Anjaana Anjaani sits uncomfortably in an odd place where a few strong sequences dissolve thanks to too many weak ones. It's like a drop hydrochloric acid mixed in a gallon of water. It is ineffective at best, and a complete waste at worst.

Akash (Ranbir Kapoor) and Kiara (Priyanka Chopra), two strangers, meet at the George Washington Bridge in New York City on a cold December night. Both come there with the intention of committing suicide; he because of losing everything in the 2008 Financial Crisis; she because of her boyfriend (Zayed Khan) issues. Unsuccessful, they make a pact to commit suicide on New Year's Eve which is 20 days away. In the mean time, they intend to do everything that they always wanted to do but kept putting off. Thus begins a journey that makes them rethink their entire lives.

The premise had immense potential I think for providing a refreshing, daring and interesting romantic comedy. However, the film collapses under its own weight as it tries to be faithful to rom com conventions. It tries to be youthful but comes off as achingly artificial. It attempts humour, but comes off as awkward. It tries to be serendipitous but appears too unbelievable. It throws logic out to the winds, at too many places. For example, there is a particular sequence where they are both in the (literally) freezing ocean about to drown and it is there she decides to tell him her life story. They decide to drive from New York to Las Vegas. In addition to showing them reach rather too quickly, they also get their car stolen in the middle of the desert and still manage to make it look as if finding civilisation is an easy task.

It also has too many songs. Despite the glossy production and the good music, that is a hindrance as it adds to the already long runtime. At a time when Hindi movies are restricting music on a need to use basis, this film goes mad with it. Further, its placement of songs is problematic to say the least. Songs like "Aas Paas Khuda" which should've come in the penultimate portions is the first song in a completely wrong context.

Further, it has problematic characters. While I love Priyanka Chopra, and she does do extremely well as an actor in the emotional sequences, her character is just plain stupid and for all her modernity, is in desperate need of a crash course in self-respect and maybe, feminism if her tiny little fictional brain can handle it. Ranbir Kapoor hardly looks like the investment banker he apparently was. He is funny in places but his character has none of the brains to look even a wee bit convincing. They have great chemistry together but that cannot cure the disease of inept writing which plagues the film. Even something serious like the Financial Crisis is used so carelessly and with such little regard for its impact that it is frustrating (How many times can you say "The Market has crashed" and its grammatical in a single scene? According to this film, the answer is countless. The more you say it, the more you will make the audience feel sorry for you.)

I did start this review mentioning some strong sequences. I like the back story of Kiara even though it is horrible placed in the narrative. Priyanka Chopra I thought did exceedingly well in those portions. There were some small scenes here and there as well. However, overall, this is a shockingly bad film that had the potential to be an amazing one, maybe even an Indian answer to Harold and Maude. Do not bother with it unless you are stuck in a long plane ride and this is your only option. That was the case with me.

Rating: 1.5/5

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

2010-12-02T07:58:00.000-08:00

The Narnia series had, in my opinion, a fantastic start with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. I haven’t read the books but the film was a gorgeous production with a coherent story (unlike most Harry Potter adaptations), an exuberant spirit and loads of heart. It provided us a magical new world with characters we could care for. Prince Caspian was an adequate and yet, in every way, underwhelming follow up which was too dark, too dull to enjoy the same kind of reception. The film was weaker both, visually and as a story. However, when Andrew Adamson who helmed the first two films, was replaced by Michael Apted, I was even more skeptical as his only film I have seen is one I have disliked with some intensity (The World Is Not Enough). However, I was pleasantly surprised with this one.

The premise: Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund (Skandar Keynes) are now teenagers who are living a mundane life in the middle of the War with their Uncle Albert and irritating cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) while Peter and Susan are in the US with their parents. They find themselves called into Narnia once more, this time with Eustace and find themselves on the Dawn Treader, the finest ship in Narnia in the company of Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) and Narnian sailors. But there is no war going on this time. Instead, they are on a voyage to investigate into the fate of seven warriors who supported Caspian’s father before his death. What starts out as a simple voyage becomes a quest against something far more sinister that threatens the new established peace in Narnia.

Although the third instalment still falls short of the standards set by the first film, it is an improvement over Prince Caspian in every way. Visually, it is stunning, not just in terms of the scale of production but also in terms of the imagination. The film has an epic look in that classic way and considerable imagination has gone into creating the worlds. Several moments in the film are simultaneously terrifying and awe-inspiring.

In terms of story also, it is far more enjoyable a tale with the right mix of humour and drama, good and evil, swashbuckling action and magical fantasy. What I particularly liked in the film is that the way the human relationships were handled. Characters were better developed and each relationship signified a different theme. In Eustace and his relationship with Reepicheep, the film explores what it means to live for something more than yourself and finding courage in the most difficult of circumstances. In Lucy, we see the importance of self-worth and individuality. In Edmund, we see the struggle to understand what it means to be a man. In his relationship with Caspian, we have the exploration of what it means to be a brother. These are themes and ideas that both, kids and adults can engage with. These are dealt with simplistically, but well (at least considerably better than Prince Caspian) It is endearing to see the growth of Lucy and Edmund as characters, more so than Peter and Susan’s.

Ultimately, Voyage of the Dawn Treader falls short by a margin in matching up to magic of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. However, it is a vast improvement over Prince Caspian, in every department and makes for a thoroughly entertaining fare for people of all ages. It is an epic film with a marriage of scale, content and spirit that has become seriously rare in American productions.

Rating: 3.5/5

Easy A (2010): Make That an A+

2010-11-27T08:12:00.000-08:00

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The 80s teen movies were the shiznit. John Hughes sketched intelligent and interesting characters that people across space and time have identified with. His film made people laugh, introspect and provided comfort to many teens, troubled or otherwise. Most teen films that followed just didn’t match up to them. Then came American Pie which, though a good film, singlehandedly shifted the direction of the teen comedy genre. What followed was a legion of films that provided a barrage of increasingly unfunny poop jokes and fake characters obsessed with losing their virginity. The last decent comedy set among high school teens was Mean Girls. That was 6 years back and before that, there was 10 Things I Hate About You which was 11 years back. Now, we have Easy A.

The premise starts off with a deceptively simple lie: Olive (Emma Stone), in order to get out of a camping trip with her best friend (Alyson Michalka) and her bohemian parents, tells a lie that she has a date with an imaginary college guy. Then, to stop her friend’s badgering, she admits to having had sex with the imaginary guy. The rumour mills get to work and soon everyone is talking including the Jesus freak antagonist (Amanda Bynes). Things complicate when she agrees to pretend to have slept with a gay student (Dan Byrd) to protect him from further bullying for his sexual orientation. One thing leads to another and suddenly, Olive is in the business of doing similar “favours” for monetary benefits. Although initially hesitant, she embraces the slutty image and needless to say, the situation quickly spirals out of her control.

Easy A does not have an iota of originality in its premise. It borrows liberally from (and often takes a dig at) better and more popular teen comedies like the Sixteen Candles, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, 10 Things I Hate About You, American Pie, Grease, Say Anything etc. It even has clear literary influences, the most obvious of which is The Scarlet Letter. However, it ties in these inspirations (and in some cases derivations) into a sharp, witty script with an extremely likable and intelligent protagonist and some wonderful supporting characters. Instead of denying its sources, it embraces them and works from there. Therein lies its greatest strength. It may not be realistic, but that can’t be called one of the strengths of the teen comedy genre. It is, however, consistently hilarious and filled with some brilliant references to the aforementioned films and several others. It would be wrong to reject it outright as shamelessly derivative. It is better seen as a great homage to the movies that defined the genre. Even on its own, it wisely sidesteps half baked sentimentalism opting for wit, sarcasm and outrageous humour instead and provides us some thoroughly entertaining moments.While not knowing the sources that inspire it does not take away from its sheer entertainment value, knowing them helps appreciate its virtues even more.

Another thing I realised is that all great teen movies have a memorable soundtrack. Easy A does a respectable job in that department as well. Apart from the songs it borrows from the aforementioned movies, it has a great collection of contemporary and classic tunes in its armoury that fit the tone of the film perfectly well.

The casting for this film is unbelievably good. The actors may not look like teenagers, but they do know how to act their parts. Emma Stone gives a pitch perfect performance as Olive, the girl who goes from anonymity to notoriety within 2 weeks. I have loved her in films like Zombieland and Superbad and she is only getting better. She is to this film what both, Matthew Broderick and Alan Ruck were to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Without her, the film would crumble into mediocrity. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson are side splittingly funny as the progressive, quirky and caring parents of Olive. They may not be the most realistic characters, but they sure are immensely likable. Lisa Kudrow is very good as the stereotypical guidance counsellor with a few twists of her own. Amanda Bynes plays the vamp for a change and does it well. Malcolm McDowell and Thomas Haden Church are wasted. The rest of the cast is adequate.

Overall, Easy A reminds us how good a teen comedy can be. While not ground breaking, it is a nostalgic throwback to the great films that defined the genre and features an immensely likable protagonist and borderline fantastic performances. It has great repeat value and that is more than enough to give this film a recommendation. Hopefully, it will not be another 6 years before another good entry in the genre.

Rating: 3.5/5

Break Ke Baad (2010): A Potential Classic

2010-11-26T08:24:00.000-08:00

I have never walked into a romantic comedy expecting more than what is conventional. Many films try to be contemporary or realistic with the end result ranging from mixed to farcical to downright disastrous (read: Love Aaj Kal). However, very rarely does one find a film that does not try any of these and yet, manages to be all of them. Break Ke Baad is one of those.

Meet Aliyah Khan (Deepika Padukone) and Abhay Gulati (Imran Khan), or Al and Gelato. They met when they were 5, started dating when they were 15 and have been dating ever since. They are both in love with each other, there’s no doubt about that. But Aliyah wants to be an actress, travel, see the world and be adventurous while Abhay does not know what he wants, works in a dead end job at his father’s office but is unconditionally in love with Al. She wants space, he wants her. The relationship is put to test when they decide to take a break with her leaving for Australia to learn acting. Things complicate, tough decisions are taken and they must find a way to love each other without losing their individual selves.

Break Ke Baad is, in my opinion, one of the most honest, natural and relatable films about today’s generation. It has seriously flawed but immensely likable characters that we care for within the first ten minutes. He is a caring, understanding and patient boyfriend who may be struggling to find himself but is sure about his commitment to her. She is lively, vivacious, funny but insensitive, self-centred and fiercely protective about her individualism. These characters are extremely well sketched; the themes are given thought and the emotions resonance. It had all the ingredients of a conventional rom com. What makes it more than one is that it confronts the conflicts between individualism and commitment and deals with them in a sensitive, intelligent and balanced manner without falling prey to either aggressive individualism (like Eat, Pray, Love) or worse, some form of chauvinistic hypocrisy.

The writing is impeccable here. Very rarely are lines clichéd or the jokes dull. The script is written well not only in the humorous moments but also in the dramatic ones. The elders have the required wisdom of age and the younger characters have the chutzpah and spunk. Thankfully, no one uses terms like “Mango People” here. One may instantly be able to identify with many aspects of the relationship, the good bits and the bad. The final half hour of the film may be too long and meandering for some but I think it is necessary to show the growth of the characters gradually (even if the sequence of events if circuitous) rather than abrupt changes of heart. Moreover, the lines here are written well enough to play along anyway. The only flaw in the film is the climax which has been seen one too many times in Hindi films. But by then, it doesn’t matter.

Danesh Aslam directs the film straight without unnecessary frills focusing on timing and performances instead. The running time is kept on a tight leash. The music is on a need to use basis and furthers the story rather than hampering it. The lyrics by Prasoon Joshi are refreshingly different and break several conventions. The production design is classy without being excessive. Any and all extravagance (like Al's house in Gold Coast) is sufficiently justified in the script.

The acting is good throughout. Imran Khan cements his position as the leading man for romantic comedies. He has never been more likable or emotionally expressive. Deepika Padukone is true to her character and pitches in a solid performance, a pleasant surprise. Yudi and Shahana Goswami do well as the sexed up brother and the bohemian and slighltly emo sister who are friends with Al and Gelato. Lilette Dubey gets away with some of the best lines in the film and Sharmila Tagore brings a distinct elegance and poise to her character that adds weight to her few words.

All in all, I have rarely given rave reviews to romantic comedies. Break Ke Baad qualifies as one of those rare occasions. It is not the most original film. It has its inspirations. But, it is at times brutally honest, often surprisingly deep and almost always intelligent. It cackles in wit and humour throughout. It is the film that Love Aaj Kal should have been. In Bollywood, it represents another entry in a growing group of storytellers who can tell contemporary stories with maturity, intelligence and youthful charm. I walked in expecting, at best, Jab we Met but instead received a film that has the classic romantic charm of When Harry Met Sally and the honesty and relatability of (500) Days of Summer. How often does that happen?

Rating: 4/5

P.S.: Yes, I have now introduced a star rating. Saves time for those who can’t or don’t care for reading.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (2010)

2010-11-17T03:47:00.000-08:00

Few things have had an indelible impact on my life: the Harry Potter series is one of them. I was 12 years old, when a friend (you know who you are.) introduced me to the awesomeness of Harry Potter. Four books had been released until then and what started out as a sceptical read turned into an unrivalled obsession. Few books I can claim to have read, let alone re-read over and over till I have lost count. The Harry Potter books fall in the latter category. I stood in line at 5:30 a.m. on a dry, cool Bangalore morning to buy the first few copies of the Deathly Hallows and threatened to sock the first guy who bought it, opened to the last page and gasped. Yes, that is the only time I have ever threatened to beat the crap out of anyone and actually meant it. What I’m saying is that the series meant something to me and to millions others of my generation: we literally grew up with Harry Potter.

How does one judge a Harry Potter film? I, for one don’t judge it for its special effects, camerawork or production design. And I wouldn’t dare be pompous enough to comment on the performances of the veteran actors, arguably the most talented ensemble ever assembled for a single film/series. The quality of their work is a foregone conclusion. No, I judge a Harry Potter film by how it tells the story I loved so much on the screen. I am not a purist and I don’t care for imitation. I expect liberties to be taken; it’s a different medium and hence, must play to its own strengths. But what I do care for is that the spirit of the book is captured on screen and that the film tells a coherent story which would be accessible even to someone who has not read the books.

On that scale of expectations, the films have, by and large, butchered the books: the first two massacred its spirit in favour of an unimaginative imitation of the source material; the third just butchered the story, removing key elements of the plot which were crucial to the series and unforgivably truncating two of the most interesting characters in Harry’s world then: Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. The fourth was too complex to condense into a single film, perhaps the only entry in the series that actually deserved two films. Basically, until then, the films to me were both, a commercial hack job and an artistic embarrassment.

However, the entry of David Yates has perhaps been the best thing that happened to the series. Like his previous works (State of Play, the BBC miniseries among others), he demonstrated an ability to balance the serious themes with whimsical, humorous elements without derailing the emotional core of the story. In fact, cinematically, his approach was the closest to literary style and tone of Rowling in the books. Surely, he took liberties with the source material but did so keeping in mind the strengths of cinema as a medium and those of the books themselves. In doing so, not only did he capture the spirit of the books, a feat I believe far more crucial, and difficult to achieve than mere factual imitation, but also managed to give an emotionally gratifying cinematic experience, something I thought this series was incapable of. It’s for these reasons, if no other, I looked forward to the 7th film in the series with some guarded optimism. And thankfully, the first part of the final entry impresses...for the most part.

A quick overview of the plot: Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), now 17, has come of age and has chosen to leave Hogwarts to go find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes. Accompanying him on this journey are his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). Dumbledore is dead and the Ministry has been infiltrated by the Death Eaters. The peril is more pronounced and the danger more immediate than ever before. With the enemy catching up inexplicably fast,, Harry must learn how to destroy the Horcruxes before time runs out. He must also deal with leaving and in some cases, losing loved ones.

There are some moments of brilliance in the film. The opening sequences are the most poignant in the series and in their quiet, unassuming way leave a surprisingly strong impact. The atmosphere of fear, paranoia and constant danger has been created here with unparalleled success as compared to the rest of the series. The moving out of Hogwarts provides an opportunity to embellish the film visually with beautiful scenery and breathtaking vistas; an opportunity David Yates makes full use of. Yates also scores well once again, in adding humour and relief even in some of the darkest moments in the film. There are emotional moments that, though departing from the book are spot on especially the plot devices used to create the tension between Harry, Ron and Hermione. There will be purists who will criticise them but I think they work extremely well in the film. The greatest moment of the film, however, is the revealing of the Deathly Hallows. The tale of the three deathly hallows is exquisitely conjured up on screen and is a testament to the power of cinema as a medium of storytelling. Those few minutes are awe inspiring and remain with you for a long time after.

However, there are a few serious errors here as well. In its over-zealousness to stay true to the source material to satisfy purists, a few sequences from the book do not translate well on the screen at all. This is particularly true in the emotional moments that are, in fact, taken from the book which are more awkward than endearing on screen. Further, there is no artistic justification whatsoever for splitting the last book into two films. Although faithful to the source material, the narrative is slow in the middle the languorous pacing proves that in adapting a book, condensing is not only inevitable, but also imperative. Film is a different medium and it is a wholly different task to hold an audience’s attention span for 150 minutes of film as compared to 500 pages of a book. Honestly, the story could have been condensed into a single longer film much like Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and been just as good, if not better. As expected, the end is abrupt and it will be excruciating to wait for 6 months to see the final film.

Although I said that performances are not a basis to judge a Harry Potter film on, I would single out one performance here. Rupert Grint takes giant leaps as an actor and delivers an intelligent and powerful performance. For once, he gets a chance to do more than just humour and he seizes the opportunity to shine. He has had most success in making the transition into an adult actor and the tension between him and Emma Watson is electric in the film.

Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I has some flaws, the most serious one being the last two words in its title. But as a prelude to the finale, it is a surprisingly satisfactory adaptation with moments of true cinematic brilliance in all the right places. It sets the stage well and gets important little details right which are crucial to Part II although people may not realise immediately. Moreover, it patiently tells a coherent story keeping in mind an audience that would be unfamiliar with the source material, howsoever few. Purists will still find faults in the film. However, as the beginning to the end, as much as I am shocked to admit to this, it not only met my expectations, it surpassed them.

A cautionary final word: Part I howsoever good is only one half of an entire film. Its greatness or mediocrity will only truly be determined by the quality of Part II. But looking at Part I, hopefully, we may have a Return of the King in our hands and not a Matrix Revolutions. However, until we know for sure, it's best to remember that this is an incomplete film and expect accordingly.

Unstoppable (2010): An Intense Ride!

2010-11-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

I often think that it is a serious risk, if not outright mistake to mention in the beginning of an action/thriller that it has been inspired by or is based on true events. That’s because it dooms the film to at least a certain level of predictability, which can be the death knell for an average action thriller. You know the film will turn out in a certain way, in most cases, a happy ending (otherwise you would have heard about it, like say, 9/11) thereby making the task of creating reel tension a difficult, if not near impossible job. Few true stories translate well into thrillers: the one that comes to mind immediately is Greengrass’ United 93. Therefore, when Unstoppable came with the tag “inspired by real events”, I was skeptical. However, Tony Scott overcomes obstacles to give us a heart stopping thriller and arguably the best mainstream action film of the year.

The premise is simple: due to a mix of human error and sheer bad luck, there is an unmanned half mile long train carrying some seriously hazardous material heading at the speed of 70 mph towards a city with 750,000 people. I did not understand much of the details and honestly, I doubt that anyone would care. Two rail employees, a veteran driver (Denzel Washington) and a rookie conductor (Chris Pine) are driving a train on the same track from the opposite direction and come up with an ambitious, risky plan to stop the train before it reaches its horrific conclusion. Also involved in the plot is a station master/train dispatcher (Rosario Dawson), who is trying to help the situation and the company’s vice president (Kevin Gunn), who is in denial about the options available.

Now, Unstoppable works because the writer and director get a few crucial things right. First, and foremost, they wisely sidestep gooey sentimentality, cornball humour and similar clichés and thereby give us lead characters that look heroic without unnecessary overkill. Second, the tension is built steadily in the first half to give way to a seriously intense second half instead of a chaotic “all hell breaks loose” approach, something filmmakers like Scott and Michael Bay are very much guilty of in the past. Scott packs a real punch by keeping the premise simple and relying on a docudrama style, a feverish pace, a serious tone and some sharp editing. Third, the action, though relentless is real with minimal use of CGI. This gives a sense of believability, a feature so rare in big budget action films these days that it is worth appreciating for its own sake.

Also, for me, the film works particularly because of its choice of a villain. Here, the villain is not a human, a superhuman or even an alien. It is a train; a lifeless, mechanical and ordinarily harmless vehicle converted into a demonic, out of control missile with nothing but the promise of horrific destruction. It makes no mistake, breaks no rules, and misses no steps. It has its basis in human error, but that is irrelevant. It is its cold, clinical precision that gets under our skin. That is why films like Speed worked so well. Its appeal lies in its conversion of a harmless bus into a speeding bomb with a simple rule: fall below 55 mph and you’re dead. Honestly, how many people remember, or care about what happens after people get off the bus? The rush lies in that ride. And that is precisely what Unstoppable delivers: a massive adrenaline rush.

Last, but not least, simple but effective principal performances help keep the viewer’s interest alive throughout. Denzel Washington does nothing here that he hasn’t done before. But he does it so well that the familiarity is more endearing than annoying. Post Star Trek, Chris Pine is shaping up into a fine action star and his work here only helps him along that path. After a few initial missteps (namely Princes Diaries 2 and Just My Luck), he finally looks capable of becoming an A list Hollywood actor. Rosario Dawson does a fine job as a headstrong woman in a man’s world and gets away with some of the best lines in the film.

At the end of the day, there is nothing in Unstoppable that you haven’t seen before. It is as conventional as they come. The only difference is that you rarely get to see it done this well. As far as edge-of-the-seat action entertainers go, this is arguably your best bet this year.

Due Date (2010): No Hangover Here

2010-11-07T02:32:00.000-08:00

One year, some months and 245 films earlier, I experienced the phenomenon that was The Hangover. The definitive guy movie, the film pushed boundaries and made us laugh harder than almost ever before and most certainly ever after. The film became one of the highest grossing R-rated films of all time and was even awarded a Golden Globe for Best Picture – Comedy or Musical.

Now we have Due Date, the latest offering of director Todd Phillips. It marks the return of Zach Galifianakis and Todd Phillips, a match made at the Elvis Chapel with blessing of all the cinematic saints and gambling sinners. Added to this already exciting duo is Robert Downey Jr., one of the greatest (and most under-appreciated) actor of his generation. Even before the film hit the screens, everyone involved knew that they had a winner on their hands. I was very excited by the prospects and when I finally saw it, I must say I was a quite underwhelmed.

Don’t get me wrong. Due Date is a laugh out loud funny, in parts. Seen as a whole, however, it is an uneven film with moments of raunchy humour, warm character building and just weird, inexplicable antics meshed together to make a feature length film. The pedigree of this film makes you expect a lot more than that. It tries to mix gooey sentimentality with disgusting (and admittedly, sporadically funny) raunchy behaviour but is never able to find its centre of gravity. Many critics have called it a shameless copy of John Hughes’ Plains, Trains and Automobiles. Now I haven’t actually seen the film. However, even on its own, it is easy to see the flaws in Due Date.

The plot is simple. Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr) must travel from Atlanta to Los Angeles to his wife who is about to have his first child. However, a chance encounter with the strange Ethan Trembley (Zach Gilifianakis) and a series of misunderstandings lead to his removal from the plane and he is forced to take a cross country road trip with his new “friend”. On the way, they will get beaten up, ripped off, doped up, shot at and even arrested among various other things.

Now, the premise is funny but the film as a whole is not. Basically, the writing here is weak, confused and leaves behind a disjointed screenplay for the cast to work with. Ethan Trembley is one of the most unlikable characters I have seen in a long time. His characterisation is not only problematic but also inexplicable of sorts. The reason for this is that the film seems to fit its characters around the jokes it creates rather than the other way round. Which is why, when Ethan laughs out loud at Peter’s story about his father, it makes no sense whatsoever, even given Ethan’s strange little mind. Also, there is meanness to the humour in the film which looks completely out of sync with the sentimental portions of the film. And just when you think things couldn’t get worse, the last half hour of the film is just plain annoying. This is because the writers throw logic to the winds and the situations make no sense whatsoever. It makes you wonder what they were smoking when they wrote that garbage.

There are two things worth mentioning here though. The camerawork is gorgeous capturing the beauty of the southern states in the US with their stark landscapes and unbelievable sunsets exceedingly well. The Grand Canyon sequence is particularly breathtaking for its camerawork. Also, the soundtrack is excellent as is usual for Todd Phillips’ films. The only problem is, this is a comedy and when the humour is sporadic, audiences are hardly going to care about the sights and sounds that the film has to offer.

The two man cast really tries hard to make the film work and it does succeed to some extent. Both Downey and Gilifianakis are, in essence playing themselves, or rather their Hollywood stereotypes. Downey is the suave, good hearted but mean-spirited guy with some Tony Stark left overs. Gilifianakis is playing what is essentially a bad retread of Alan from The Hangover. He is being stereotyped and that is never a good thing. The two of them do put in an effort and are perhaps the only reason the film is worth seeing. Jamie Foxx's cameo appearance is a complete and utter waste of screen time.

In the end, Due Date is not a terrible film. But it is not a particularly good one either. It suffers from weak characterisation and bad writing. It is also uneven and is better seen as a series of short comic sketches rather than one whole film. However, the funny bits are mostly hands down hilarious. If that is enough for you, give this one a try. But be warned, there is no Hangover here. And for just this once, it is a bad thing.

P.S.: My suggestion? Wait for the DVD.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010): Game On!

2010-11-06T22:22:00.000-07:00

Now this is one movie I was looking forward to with some anticipation. And I had to wait a long time before I could get to watch it. With expectations like these, movies usually disappoint. However, Scott Pilgrim is a hyperkinetic, stylistically exuberant film with copious doses of mirth and humour. Armed with a fantastic soundtrack, a clear vision and some winning performances, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a highly satisfying film.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is an indie rock loving, 22 year old guy who spends time jamming with his band and dating a Chinese girl, Knives (Ellen Wong) who is still in high school. He lives with his gay roommate Wallace (Kern Culkin) and is constantly lectured by his overbearing younger sister (Anna Kendrick). The story really begins, however, when Scott meets Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the girl of his dreams (quite literally). They start dating and he is quite soon in love with her. However, things take a sinister turn when he learns that, in order to date Ramona, he must defeat her seven evil exes, from her first boyfriend to her most recent one before Scott. Battle face ready? Game on!

Scott Pilgrim is a visually dazzling treat. The screen is immersed is bright and shiny fluorescent colours during every battle scene and the videogame format suits the film really well. Plus, the intercutting between several scenes throughout lend a lightning pace to the film which means the 120 minutes fly by fairly quickly. It pays homage to the videogames that we grew up on, from Mario Bros to Street Fighter and more. I promise you, you haven’t seen a film like this before. And that is Scott Pilgrim’s greatest strength. Visually, it is revolutionary.

At the same time, Edgar Wright knows how to tell a clean, straight story. The characters are nicely established in the first 20 minutes leaving Ramona suitably enigmatic. The script could have been better and yet, the dialogues are sharp and the wit cackles in places. There is a certain resonance in the awkward sweet romance between Scott and Ramona that I think the Juno generation will instantly identify with and lap up to. The only flaw: the final half hour drags on a fair bit. However, by then I was so immersed in the proceedings that I was more than willing to forgive such misgivings.

Coming to the performances, Michael Cera is the king of the dorky generation, by which, I basically mean he plays the same dorky roles over and over. However, in Scott Pilgrim, you see an improvement in his style and range of emotions. The battle sequences are fairly physical and Cera does a convincing job as Pilgrim. The entire remaining cast is perfect, irrespective of their screen time. Special mention though must be given to Kieran Culkin who is brilliant as the sarcastic roommate and manages to steal the thunder from everyone, including Cera in all his scenes. I like how the focus is on him as a roommate, a friend, even a gossiping bitch but not so much on his sexual orientation, which is treated very naturally. He is an actor who deserves a bigger role.

At the end of the day, Scott Pilgrim is a good marriage of style and substance. It is fast, funny and thoroughly entertaining. At the same time, it is bursting with an innocence and charm that has been all but lost in the teen genre in recent years. It is every gamer and geek’s dream come true; well, on celluloid at least. Indulge yourself in this one.

P.S.: November is shaping up to be a most interesting month. Instead of an average of 4 posts in a month, I seem to be writing 4 a week. Let's see if I can beat my own record of 8 posts this month. :)

Action Replayy (2010): Retro Revisionist Entertainment

2010-11-05T13:08:00.000-07:00

I have said before, judging a film has a lot to do with expectations. To this writer, the names Akshay Kumar and Vipul Shah have lost a lot of credibility in recent years. Once the source of highly entertaining films, both artists have fallen prey to mediocrity in recent years. Therefore, for all its bright colours and glitzy style, I expected little from Action Replayy. And I must say, I was very pleasantly surprised.

The film cites a Gujarati play by the same name as its inspiration. However, it also draws a lot of inspiration from the classic Back to the Future. This film is also about a guy who goes back in time to unite his parents. Thankfully, it limits itself to inspiration and does not stretch to imitation. The subplots, the situations and the plot devices are entirely different. The film chooses to downplay the time travel aspects and concentrates on humour, romance and emotions, 70s ishtyle. The result is an entertaining film and a festive treat for the entire family.

The story: Kishen (Akshay Kumar) is trapped in an unhappy marriage to Mala (Aishwarya Rai) for 25 years. Their son Bunty (Aditya Roy Kapur) does not believe in marriage and refuses to commit to his girlfriend Tanya. When he meets Tanya’s eccentric scientist grandfather (Randhir Kapoor), he uses the time machine invented by grandfather to go back to March 1975 to repair his parents’ non-existent romance. There, he finds that the task may be more difficult than he realised as he faces warring parents (Om Puri and Kirron Kher), competition for his mother’s affections (Ranvijay) and a loser father.

Now, there is nothing really original about the film. It is as conventional as it gets. What makes the film worthwhile is that it tells its tale with great confidence, good humour and enough heart to make you care for these characters. Sure, there are holes in the plot from Bunty’s inexplicably modern attire in the 1970s to time travel paradoxes. Also, the music is relatively lacklustre; the film drags in the pre-climax portions. and is too convenient in places. However, it is bursting with such warmth, colour and copious amounts of pulsating energy that I found it relatively easy to overlook these. The emotional moments pack a punch and the humour is dished out in regular doses. It is definitely a return to form for Vipul Shah, the storyteller who gives us his best work since Namastey London.

On the look of the film, for anyone who has seen the trailer, it is foolish to expect accuracy in the depiction of the 70s in the film. The film is an interesting example of revisionism, looking at the past in modern terms, drawing inspiration from sources that today’s audiences use to understand the 70s i.e. the films of the era. It uses modern retro clothing, styling and draws from Manmohan Desai and Prakash Mehra rather than Gulzar and Hrishikesh Mukherjee. It isn’t realistic, and for its subject material, that is a good thing. To expect otherwise, is much like expecting factual accuracy from Inglourious Basterds. It’s possible but it would be a whole lot less entertaining.

In terms of technicals, special mention is in order for the art direction of Nitin Chandrakant Desai which is perfect. The costumes and styling are an interesting mix of retro and how we see retro. The background score by Salim Sulaiman is impeccable in adding to the impact at several points. Lastly, also worth mentioning is the camerawork which captures the vibrant colours and the scenic beauty with equal aplomb. It is a visual fiesta and each frame looks gorgeous.

In terms of acting, the film achieves two remarkable feats. First, it transforms Aishwarya Rai from ice queen to someone alive, energetic, graceful and lovable. She looks ethereal in every frame, in a way she has never looked before. At the same time, she is bubbly and vivacious, two things I thought she was incapable of. She manages to bring a theatricality that fits her character perfectly. After nearly a decade of sub-standard work, she finally gives a performance that is endearing and thoroughly enjoyable.

Second, just when I thought it was impossible, the film makes Akshay Kumar funny again. He undergoes a physical transformation to look as unattractive as possible. And yet, there is a sincerity and earnestness to his character that makes him instantly likable. He manages to make us laugh, cheer and quite firmly root for him. Aditya Roy Kapur is confident and leaves an impact as the son. Ranvijay and Rajpal Yadav are good. Randhir Kapoor and Neha Dhupia are left with half-baked characters.

Finally, Action Replayy is not, in any way, path breaking cinema. It is not even particularly intelligent. But it is a highly energetic, colourful and fun film with enough heart and humour to make you overlook its flaws and play along. This is not a film for retro purists or pseudo intellectuals. It comes as no surprise therefore, that Rajiv Masand and Mayank Shekhar disliked the film with some intensity. However, for those seeking escapism, this is satisfaction guaranteed.

Megamind (2010): Minor Entertainment

2010-11-04T09:49:00.000-07:00

Megamind is a good film. That is its basic problem. It’s just good. Animation today has set itself to too high a standard to just settle for good. At a time when mainstream cinema has, by and large, run out of ideas, animated cinema is getting more daring and original every passing year. While mainstream cinema regards its audience as having cheese for brains, animation studios respect their audience and expect them to engage with the films and their ideas intellectually. Even if we exclude Pixar for its unparalleled awesomeness, Dreamworks Animation itself has churned out some fantastically entertaining films like Shrek, Chicken Run, Kung Fu Panda, Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were Rabbit and most recently, How to Train Your Dragon. The problem with Megamind is that it is ordinary. It doesn’t have the inventiveness of Shrek, the humour of Kung Fu Panda or the heart and exuberance of How To Train Your Dragon. It has a bit of everything put together into an uneven film with a few highs and lows in an otherwise whole lot of middle. Nevertheless, some good laughs, smart twists and a borderline great climax save it from being a total waste.

The story is familiar terrain: Megamind (Will Ferrell) enjoys being evil and finds his nemesis in Metroman (Brad Pitt). Since birth, the fates of these two have been intertwined and they have battled several times with Megamind always on the losing side. However, in an unexpected turn of events, Megamind finally defeats Metroman and becomes the ruler of Metro City. He also creates an alter ego that starts dating Roxanne Ritchie (Tina Fey), a TV journalist who also has to deal with the advances of her bumbling, creepy cameraman (Jonah Hill). However, he realises that a villain has no purpose without a hero. To amend the situation, he decides to do something unthinkable with disastrous consequences.

Considering the talent involved, Megamind could have been sharper, funnier and just, plain and simple, better. Even Will Farrell lacks his usual infectious energy, perhaps because of the lack of his usual poop jokes. Tina Fey tries really hard to make the one-liners work but succeeds only in part. The real culprits here are the story which is painfully routine for the most part and a script that is flat and falls prey to clichés. The film lacks the heart that made How To Train Your Dragon so endearing. It also feels like a recycling of the Dreamworks formula of telling the story of the likable but ugly, misunderstood hero/villain. It's true: look at the Shrek series, Shark Tale, Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon. It's always broadly the same story and themes being recycled over and over. That by itself would not be a fault except that Megamind has none of the other qualities that made some of those films great, at least not in the same measure.

Having said that, the film is not without its share of bright moments. The Superman references, in particular, are absolutely spot on and evoke much laughter and nostalgia throughout. The soundtrack puts some very popular tracks to good use. The pre-climax twists help retain the viewer’s otherwise dwindling interest in the film and a surprisingly well executed climax saves the film from oblivion. IMDB tells me Guillermo Del Toro was called in to edit the film to make it more exciting. I have a strong suspicion that the final half hour was all his doing.

At the end of the day, Megamind is not really a bad film. In general movie sense, it is good one. It will keep the kids entertained for sure and should elicit at least a few chuckles from the adults as well. However, in the animation universe, where the bar is being pushed higher with every passing year, Megamind is too run of the mill, too mediocre to be remembered for long after you leave the theatres. And that’s just not worth paying the premium for a 3D experience.

Eat, Pray, Love (2010): Twilight for the 30+ Woman

2010-11-01T22:28:00.000-07:00

Eat, Pray, Love is a most vexing film. It has some wonderfully talented people doing good work in telling a story unworthy of their effort. I can imagine women calling me sexist and other similar (mostly worse) names in different volumes by, if not before, the end of this review. Yes, I am a man. But that is not why I dislike this film. Eat, Pray, Love has breath-taking visuals, very impressive acting and some solid direction. In terms of craft, its only sin is its excessive length, which would be easily forgivable but for its protagonist. I have not read the book or ever met Liz Gilbert. However, if she is anything like the character in the film, I will do everything within my power to ensure it stays that way. Despite all the merits of the film, it is positively agonising to spend 134 minutes with a character who is so selfish, conceited, privileged, elitist and self-absorbed that all you want to do is strangle her. The story is so problematic in terms of characters and themes, it can be likened to Twilight, but for women over 30.

Eat, Pray, Love is the story of Elizabeth Gilbert (Julia Roberts). One minute she is a successful New York writer considering motherhood and the next minute, she is convinced she’s in an unhappy marriage, gets a divorce from a loving but indecisive husband (Billy Crudup), has a fling with the yoga doing stage actor (James Franco) and then dumps him to spend a year in Italy, India and Bali. In Italy, she discovers the joy of food, friendship and the need to enjoy the good things. In India, she learns to forgive herself. Finally, in Bali, she learns to fall in love again, both with herself and another.

This would be a good story, maybe even a great one. But when you look at Elizabeth Gilbert (the character, not the person), it is hard to feel anything for her. You don’t feel sorry for her when she gets a divorce. And you certainly don’t feel happy for her in the end either. Why? Because there is no change; no transformation. Unlike Julie and Julia, where cooking saved two women and helped them find meaning in their life, travel does nothing like that for Miss Gilbert. She is the same self-absorbed person she was, it’s just that she has conveniently learned to forgive herself for it. She forgives herself for walking out on the people who made the mistake of loving her; for only thinking about herself. She accepts herself for who she is and moves on.

My problem with such a "way of life" is this: Sure, we are all flawed people. However, what makes us human is that we make an effort to overcome these flaws. In the meantime, it is important to love yourself, without a doubt. But in Gilbert’s story, you find loving yourself as an excuse, a justification you give yourself for who you are and remaining that way. It’s just something that’ll allow you to sleep at night. And the worst part is, the story shamelessly uses some hokey version of Eastern philosophy to add to her “revelations” an artificial sense of profundity. How exactly does this philosophy help her reach such conclusions is never clearly explained. It’s shallow and superfluous and consequently, so is the film. And what a travesty that is!

That’s because visually, this film is dazzling. It showcases all the three places beautifully on camera. Murphy works with his editor to create the right atmosphere in each of the countries. He shows great sensitivity and taste in those moments. Together, they allow you to almost actually experience the elegance of Italy, the culture of India and the serenity of Bali. Murphy also knows how to tell a story and creates several poignant moments in the film to convey the themes and emotions. It’s just the wrong story to tell.

Coming to the acting, Julia Roberts was my first crush as a teenager. I fell head over heels in love with her in films like Notting Hill, Pretty Woman, Stepmom and My Best Friend’s Wedding. Here, she is as always, otherworldly, with her beaming smile and her boundless charm. She plays her role well; but it’s the role that’s the problem. The men in this film are treated as little more than trifling eye-candy with no little or no development. Considering the talent involved (all three men have some fantastic films in their resume), that is a disappointment. The only man with a real character is Richard Jenkins who plays a Texan in India struggling to forgive himself for his past. He gives a memorable performance in the film.

Ultimately, Eat, Pray, Love is a problematic film. It is not a romance, unless you consider a relationship with yourself romantic. It is not a comedy because there are some serious, weighty themes there. As a travel film, it is one of the most pointless travelogues of all time, howsoever elegant. It has a loathsome protagonist, one who is oblivious to the people she hurts on her quest for meaning. I would much rather have seen a film about Sofie (Tuva Novotny), Gilbert's best friend in Rome. Don’t get me wrong. It will certainly have its legions of female supporters. I can imagine lots of smiles with glistening tears, tissue papers and everything. But beyond that, I think that the film is doing little more than encouraging women to be like the stereotypical man: selfish, conceited, and insensitive. As a feminist, I find that insulting and dangerous in its counter-productivity. In an age when men are being criticised for these things, this film advocates that women should be the exact same way. That’s just sad. Because woman, you are better than that!

The Social Network (2010)

2010-10-22T22:38:00.000-07:00

The Social Network is a unique film for two reasons: first, it demonstrates great ambition by taking a subject that is contemporary, factual and in fact, incomplete. The Facebook story (and that of its “co”-founder, Mark Zuckerberg) is far from over. Yet, the film dares to take the story so far, without the benefit of hindsight or retrospect and weaves it into a narrative. Moreover, it takes the complexities of the story and the enigma surrounding many of its characters and presents them in an intelligent, coherent manner and hold the audience's attention throughout. To do so, the makers, of their own admission, fictionalize certain aspects of the film but that isn't necessary a fault per se.

Secondly, it chooses to tell a story about a genius, an entrepreneur and an arrogant ass. How many movies do that? Most movies are about the underdog; they represent corporations and its creators as evil and greedy. Nobody likes the genius. One of the reasons films like Amadeus worked so well is because people identify with Salieri from whose perspective it is shown. He may be evil but he is mediocre. We relate to his mediocrity, not Mozart’s genius. However, Fincher and Sorkin dare to stray away from this practice and manage to give us one of the finest films of this year.

Pride, arrogance, insecurity and ego: these are the recurring themes in the Facebook story. We start with Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) at Harvard University in 2003. The film shows us the genesis of Facebook, the motivations behind it, the little anecdotes that shaped it and the personal casualties and legal controversies it faced on its meteoric journey from conception to a worldwide phenomenon.

The subject matter of The Social Network is explosive to put it mildly. It is edgy, powerful and let’s face it, Facebook is the single biggest phenomenon that has influenced the lives of 500 million people around the world, many of them between the age groups of 17-25. Why? Because, as Time Magazine put it, Google allows you to search, Twitter allows you to tweet but Facebook taps into the entire range of human emotions and puts it online. For this. culturally, it is bigger than the Iraq War or even the credit crisis. In a small way, we are all characters in the Facebook story; the people who have made it possible. Further, it is about a man that people would love to hate and one who seeming has it all. He is intelligent and ingenious but at the same time arrogant, difficult and basically, an asshole. Or so he seems.

Aaron Sorkin is one of the best writers in the business and his writing style serves the subject matter well. The crisp dialogue, the sharp wit, humour and sarcasm, the long scenes help set the tone of the film. Wisely, he overcomes the difficulties in portraying Zuckerberg by adopting a narrative style that is every bit as confident, arrogant, incisive and furiously paced as its protagonist. Impeccably scripted, Sorkin is definitely a strong contender for an Oscar win for his screenplay.

Fincher brings the script to life on celluloid, and how! Contractually bound to keep the runtime around 2 hours, he made the actors talk faster to cover the entire script which actually serves the film’s fiery narrative well. He keeps things straightforward and brings out the intensity in the proceedings which is only comparable to the meteoric rise of Facebook itself. Another notable thing about the film is the editing, which is impeccable and handles the narrative jumps and time transitions effortlessly. In fact, technically, this is a flawless film.

The performances are uniformly strong throughout, even from Justin Timberlake. However, the one Oscar-worthy performance that really stands out is that of Jesse Eisenberg. I have been watching films starring Eisenberg (Zombieland, The Hunting Party, Adventureland etc.) for a while now and it is remarkable how well he is evolving. He reminds me of a young Dustin Hoffman, particularly, though not exclusively in The Graduate; dorky, awkward, social outcast and yet, capable of bringing depth, passion and intensity to his performance. This is one actor to watch out for.

At the end of it all, a friend (yes that means you, Blumstein) complained that the film is premature and will age swiftly and be forgotten like Pirates of Silicon Valley which was based on the story of Bill Gates. Haven’t heard of it? That’s precisely his point. However, I think he is wrong and here’s the reason: There is a strong subtext to the film. In its portrayal of Zuckerberg, the film shows how lonely it is to be a genius, a pioneer; to be under the spotlight; how irrelevant intentions are; how one’s identity and actions are so greatly determined by who he wants to be or how he wants the world to see him; and how these insecurities dog you, whether you are a Facebook user or its creator, the youngest billionaire in the world. In doing so, it goes beyond a factual drama and taps into something universal and, with Eisenberg’s powerhouse performance, achieves something rather amazing; it humanises the son of a bitch. Because of this, it is not going to be aging anytime soon, or so I think. As one character opines, Zuckerberg is not an asshole, he is just trying really hard to be. Understanding why is perhaps key to appreciating the film. You are free to disagree with that assessment; the film gives you enough reason to. I don’t. But that is irrelevant; because either way, this is riveting cinema.

Red (2010): Ridiculous, but Entertaining Diversion

2010-10-22T03:39:00.000-07:00

It is difficult not to stare in disbelief when you see the billing for Red in its trailer. Its cast: Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox John Malkovich, Mary Louise Parker, Karl Urban, Richard Dreyfuss and Julian McMahon. That’s a whole stack of Oscars, Emmys and Golden Globes right there. Even more preposterous is actually watching these actors in thae film. This is a pulpy action flick, as pulpy as they come. It’s highly reminiscent of 80s and 90s action films. It is a film that has to be seen to be believed.

The ridiculousness that is the plot: Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is a retired CIA officer who spends his time chatting with a call centre girl, Sarah (May Louise Parker) who writes pulpy espionage thrillers on the side. One fine day, Frank’s house is attacked by ruthless assassins and suddenly, he discovers he is on a CIA hit list. He is codenamed Red (Retired Extremely Dangerous). Together with Sarah, he reunites with his old friends, the calm Joe (Freeman), the crazy Marvin (Malkovich) and the elegant Victoria (Mirren) to figure out why this is happening.

The plot is reminiscent of recent films like The A-Team, The Expendables and The Losers. However, Red is definitely the most entertaining of these films. This is because, despite its unbelievable (and fairly routine) plot, it finds an interesting mix of unexpectedly charming romance and cackling humour interspersed with some highly entertaining action set pieces. The dialogues shine in places and in others, the cast makes them shine. The action work, thankfully spares us of the headache inducing, shaky camera close ups (like those in The A-Team and most other mainstream action films in recent times) that tend to confuse rather than entertain. Although they keep it relatively simple, the action sequences work as they are outrageously entertaining in their obnoxiousness.

Of course, there are several weaknesses here: the film takes half its run-time to set up its initial characters; Mirren doesn’t even enter the scene till near the half way mark. The film should've been trimmed by at least 20 minutes. Also, one can’t help but feel that these characters deserve a better adventure much like the ones they yearn for from their Cold War days.

Nevertheless, the film is saved by some solid performances. Malkovich and Mirren get away with most of the best lines. Malkovich is riotous in his crazy act. Willis plays the action star yet again, effortlessly as always. Brian Cox is endearing as the Russian spy who loves his vodka and reminisces about the good old times. Dreyfuss gets away with a few brilliant lines despite a small role. Karl Urban and Mary Louise-Parker are adequate. Freeman is unfortunately, wasted.

However, few things, to this writer’s simple mind, are cooler and crazier than watching Helen Mirren wield a Gatling Gun, an Uzi and a Sniper Rifle among others. She is the embodiment of charm, spirit, intelligence and elegance in films like The Queen, State of Play and Calendar Girls. Yet, when she gets behind the gun, the elegance is replaced with a cold, borderline maniacal determination which screams, “You don’t want to mess with me!” She is, without a doubt, the best thing about the film.

At the end of the day, Red has its share of weaknesses. It does fully deliver on its premise. It’s just that you wish it were a better premise considering the talent involved. Nevertheless, the cast , some good lines and a very satisfying second half put it miles above many of the action films you have seen this year. This one’s yet another trifle, but an entertaining one.

Retrospective: The English Patient (1995)

2010-10-19T22:58:00.000-07:00

This is a new column that I am starting with this post. Instead of reviewing only new films, I intend to write about older films; films I like, some are popular; others overlooked or forgotten. These are good films, or at least, I think so. Do give your feedback as to what you think of this.

Film-making is a collaborative effort. The writer conceives the film and gives it a skeletal structure in the form of the script. The production designer, the costume designer and the actors together bring the story to life and the cameraman capture it on film. At post-production, the editor takes these disjointed visuals and weaves them into a coherent narrative. The composer provides greater emotion and meaning to the film through his compositions. The director helms the affairs by coordinating all of the above and bringing his vision of the story to life on celluloid. Finally, there is an army of technicians, assistants and others working furiously to make their works possible. No major film is a one man show. However, this collaborative nature is often overlooked when evaluating a film.

The English Patient, in the year of its release, swept the Oscars with an astounding 9 awards; for good reason. It is a film I have seen and seen again several times over the years; and it is one of those rare films that gets better with every viewing. Few films offer a better example of collaborative film-making than this.

To say that The English Patient was a difficult film to make would be making an understatement. Based on the complex (and celebrated) novel written by Michael Odaantje, it is a sprawling epic spread over 7-8 years with several jumps, back and forth, in the narrative. It has two major love stories as its base with countless little subplots and details to fill the canvas, each giving invaluable insight into the characters. It was a writer’s and editor’s worst nightmare. With its elliptical narrative of the film (it starts and closes with the same scene of a plane flying in the air), the editor claims to have made at least 40 time transitions in the film on the editing table while maintaining consistency in the narrative. When seen as a whole, the film is a remarkable achievement in editing, a department that is often denied its due credit.

Even if one were to overlook the difficulties of craft that the film posed, logistically also, it was a nightmare. 20th Century Fox was to initially produce the film. However, they backed out at pre-production due to casting issues and it seemed for a while that the film would not be made. Miramax stepped in to save the film. However, it was to be shot on a tight budget and the producer Saul Zaentz put $ 6,000,000 of his own money to fund the film. Tourists stood in as extras due to lack of funds. The first draft of the script to final cut took four long years. It was a labour of love for all the people involved in the film. The results were for all to see.

The plot: a mysterious man thought to be English who has been burnt beyond recognition comes under the care of the nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche). He is dying and they find shelter in a partially destroyed Italian church near the end of World War II. Hana is afraid to love anyone as she fears she would lose them to the War. She is haunted by ghosts from the past. Her fears are tested when she meets Kip (Naveen Andrews), a young Indian soldier who she instantly feels attracted to.

The patient, she learns is Count Laszlo de Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian Count who was a part of an international map making team in North Africa in the pre-war years. He got into a torrid, passionate affair with a colleague’s wife, Katherine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas). Now, at the end of the War, a former spy Caravaggio (Willem Defoe) is looking for Almasy for betraying Allied secrets to the Nazis which led to his capture and torture. Who is Almasy, really? Did he betray Allied secrets? What happened to Katherine?

The English Patient is an epic love story; one you rarely get to see these days. If the perfect epic romance is ever made, I suspect it will closely resemble this one. What is remarkable, though, is that the reason why the film works so well is the collaboration of certain very specific people. It isn’t just the script or the performances or the direction. At each stage of filmmaking, effort has gone into the film and these efforts together help make the film what it is. The script does a remarkable job of adapting the book into a complex but fulfilling film. The sprawling length of the film actually serves the story exceedingly well as the runtime is used well to develop the characters and their relationships, in both the stories.

The look of the film is perfect; the costumes, the production and last, but not least, the camerawork. The loneliness of the desert and the quiet Italian countryside is beautifully captured on film. The detailing in the costumes and the art work is breathtaking to behold. A good deal of research has gone into the film with many of characters and settings being based in historical facts.

The performances are, of course, superlative. Kristin Scott Thomas was cast after she wrote a letter to Minghella saying “I am K in your film” (a reference that people who have seen the film or read the book will understand). The studios wanted Demi Moore instead and it is hard to imagine a worse casting decision. As Katherine, Kristin Scott Thomas brings a rare mix of passion and enigma which is intoxicating. It is not difficult to see why anyone would fall in love with her. Ralph Fiennes gives a deep, powerful and resonating performance as the Count, a man who knows five languages but doesn’t speak much. Juliette Binoche is lovable as the young Hana and brings out the vulnerability of her character exceedingly well. Defoe is fantastic as Caravaggio, as always.

However, this film would not be half as good if it wasn’t for the lilting score provided by Gabriel Yared. One of the great original soundtracks in my opinion, the score is influenced by American, Arab and European music and lends amazing depth and poignancy to the film at several moments. It would be worthy to watch the film again simply to note the music at specific places.

At the helm of all this of course, is Anthony Minghella who brings the efforts of all of these people together and with his vision creates one of the great love stories of our time. The English Patient is a powerful film that evokes that sense of romance in a way few films have. On each viewing, a long time after the film is over, the words spoken by Katherine remain in my mind:

"We die, we die rich with lovers and tribes, tastes we have swallowed, bodies we have entered and swum up like rivers, fears we have hidden in...We are the real countries, not the boundaries drawn on maps with the names of powerful men."

A film for every movie lover. And every romantic.

Trivia about the film is available (and sourced from) here.

The Brief Encounter: Five Favourites

2010-10-13T09:07:00.000-07:00

Many of the greatest romantic movies of our times are about brief encounters. People meet and fall in love. And then their love is punctuated, or even ends, because of fate, chance, or in some cases, choice. What is it about a brief encounter that is so magnetic? Is it the sense of buoyancy it provides, both to its characters and the viewer? Or is it the futility of it? A cynic would say that its appeal lies in its romanticised view of love; or its convenient sidestepping of what happens proverbially on the morning after. But, for me, and I guess any romantic, it is the possibility, the mere chance that one could stumble upon a beautiful romance at a place and time when one least expects it; on a train to Vienna, in the middle of a War, or on an unsinkable ship. It is the promise that such a premise holds that enchants us. We want to believe in such a romance. We want it to take us by surprise. A life is made up of countless brief encounters and we hope one of them amounts to something. more. It is for this reason that the Brief Encounter is my favourite sub-genre within Romance. There are several films about brief encounters. Here are my five favourites:

Brief Encounter: Probably the most iconic film in this sub-genre, Brief Encounter was a British film way back in 1945 about two married people, Laura (Celia Johnson) and Alec (Trevor Howard) who fall in love over a series of brief encounters. Directed by David Lean, who would later go on to make epics like The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, it is a quiet subtle film about an unconsummated affair. What sets it apart from most films is its time setting. Set in a time of propriety where a friendship between two married people was enough to attract suspicion, Brief Encounter may seem too outdated to many. However, it’s a great film of love and the moral conundrums it puts people in. It is also a powerful reflection of the times when brief encounters were commonplace and, as Frances Gray argued, the upper class could be silly, the working class vulgar but the middle class at the time considered itself as the moral backbone of the society. The intensity of their romance is in their words and expressions. It is a film frozen in time and is very worthy of appreciation as such.

Casablanca: When one sees Casablanca, it is hard to believe that neither Ingrid Bergman nor Humphrey Bogart or Paul Heinreid wanted to be part of this film. Undoubtedly one of the greatest films of all time, in any genre, it is the tale of Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a café in Casablanca, a gateway for Europeans on the run to America. One day, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) walks into the café (and his life) with her husband, Victor Laszlo (Paul Heinreid), a Czech revolutionary on the run from the Germans. She and Rick were having an affair in Paris when the Germans invaded and she left him without reasons. Now, passions reignite and Rick finds himself in a unique position as the only person who can secure an exit visa for Ilsa and Victor to the United States. Casablanca is a stunning film in every way. It is intimate and yet, has an epic feel. It has one of the finest scripts ever written embellished with unforgettable lines. The actors leave a lasting impact in their respective roles. It keeps us guessing about their fate just as the writers kept Ingrid Bergman guessing about her characters' till the very end. It is a timely romance, and yet, a timeless one; one that underscores the universal themes of love, loyalty and heroism.

The Bridges of Madison County: Clint Eastwood is perhaps the most versatile director of our time. Adapting Robert James Waller’s novel of the same name, Eastwood plays Nat Geo photographer Robert Kincaid who gets into a heated affair with Francesca (Meryl Streep), an Italian war bride with a quiet existence as a Midwestern housewife and mother. After a passionate week, they are hopelessly in love and Francesca faces a difficult choice between her love for Robert and her responsibility to her family. What could have been pure soap opera is elevated by Clint Eastwood to one of the most deeply resonant romances of the 1990s. It may be too slow and dull for some. However, few films are as emotionally rich and move beyond the spoken word to find meaning in body language, gestures and silent glances. This is one of those. Meryl Streep gives one of the most delicate and controlled performances of her highly illustrious career. For the patient viewer, this is one of the most rewarding romances ever.

Before Sunrise / Sunset: What can I say about this film that I haven’t already said before? One is a delightful fairytale and the other is painfully real. Both are about the brief encounters of two people, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy). First, they meet in Vienna in their early 20s and spend a night together walking around the city getting to know each other. They part at the station with promises to continue their relationship. 10 years later, (in Before Sunset) they meet once again, in Paris and the viewer learns of what happened between them and what could have been. The greatest source of the enduring appeal of these films is the writing. Never has conversation been more engrossing or attractive. On listening, one will quickly find him/herself immersed in these characters and as the film progresses; it is hard not to fall in love with them. Like I said in a previous post, this tale of chance meetings is a modern day fairy tale romance that achieves something rare: it not only makes us long for such a romance but actually almost convinces us that it is possible. While it may be too talky for the half-brained, for me, it is not only a stunning romance, but also, in my humble opinion, the greatest of our times.

Once: Another favourite of mine that has been discussed before, Once is a very unique musical in that it has that rare feature of mixing a quiet story and some soulful music into a surprisingly powerful whole. One of the biggest surprises of 2007, Once is a story of a musician (Glen Hansard) in Dublin meeting a rose seller and piano player (Marketa Irglova) and together they embark on a journey collaborating on recording an album. She is married with a child and he is hopelessly in love with her. A bittersweet romance, it is that rare musical that is personal, intimate, raw and therefore, a highly effective depiction of a brief encounter. The music contributes immensely to character development. The emotions are real, the people even more so and all this is beautifully encapsulated in the moment where the two sit at a piano and begin their musical relationship together.

Of course, there are several other great films in the sub-genre: Roman Holiday, Titanic, Kisses, Harold and Maude, In Search of a Midnight Kiss, Brokeback Mountain, It Happened One Night and others. But these are my favourite films about the sub-genre in romance, the brief encounter.

I Am Love (2010): An Exquisite Film

2010-10-07T12:21:00.000-07:00

There is a scene half way through the film where Emma Recchi (Tilda Swinton) is served prawn and ratatouille for lunch by the chef Antonio (Edoardo Gabbriellini). So entranced is she by the look, the aroma, the flavours of the dish that she soon is lost in her meal, as if in a passionate, erotic exchange with Antonio himself. So palpable is the sexual energy in the scene that you can almost experience her agony and her ecstasy. The camera alternates between her eyes, her mouth and the dish itself. The food here as a metaphor for sex is used so beautifully, it would qualify, according to me, as one of the best sex scenes in cinema in recent years.

Every once in a while there comes a film that challenges your assumptions about films. After writing about movies for 3 years, I firmly believed that, in any great film, the script was paramount. A film I Am Love makes me rethink such axiomatic beliefs. Its story is pure soap opera and its script is only so-so. However, the distinct visual style of director Luca Guadagnino and the performance of Tilda Swinton elevate the film to an insightful meditation on life, identity, loss, love and relationships.

The story is of the Recchi family, an Italian business family that has made its fortunes in manufacturing textiles, set in Milan at the turn of the 20th century. On his birthday, the patriarch of the family appoints his eldest son, Trancedi and (unexpectedly) his grandson, Edoardo Jr. (Flavio Parenti) as his successors. Trancedi’s wife is the Russian Emma who plays the part of a good wife and loving mother. Emma struggles with her daughter’s homosexuality and a strong sexual attraction she feels for Antonio, a chef and her son’s best friend. Meanwhile, Edoardo struggles with his father’s decision to sell the family business. These forces threaten to tear the family apart and force Emma to rethink her roles.

As a story, the film appears like pure formula and reminds you of several similarly themed films from Bridges of Madison County to the more recent Private Lives of Pippa Lee. However, the similarity ends here and I Am Love could not be more different from the aforementioned films. For director Guadagnino treats the film in a unique manner by using the visuals to convey the emotions and the complexities rather than the dialogue. In doing so, he manages to provide unexpected depth and gravitas to the film. He treats the viewer like an outsider and gives a whole lot of visuals to interpret. It is a love letter to the city of Milan and the retro feel to it from start to finish fits the film's mood and tone perfectly. To fully understand these characters and appreciate their world, you need to watch the camera movements, the angles and the editing carefully.

Take for instance, the opening scenes. These are crucial to understand Emma and the people who inhabit her world. Italian family lunches, I have on good authority, are a long affair worthy of sociological study. Here, as the camera cuts between the preparations for the lunch, the interiors of the house, the people who inhabit it, you see the cold precision of the preparation, the high fashion, the bourgeoisie attitude and the condescension. The icy inhabitants are juxtaposed beautifully to the warm, lush, maroon and mahogany interiors. The customs, the traditions and the hypocrisies are all on display. A glance here and a gesture there is enough to reveal this. But to notice, you need to give your undivided attention. This visual style is what sets the film apart.

Coming to the performances, has there been a more exquisite, delicate and powerful performance than Tilda Swinton’s realisation of Emma this year? I don’t think so. The film would have very easily collapsed into a montage of amazing but disjointed visuals without her strong central performance. It would not be incorrect to say that if the director provides flamboyance to this film, Swinton anchors it. How many English speaking actresses can feign ignorance of the language on screen and look completely natural? Definitely my favourite performance of the year so far, she brings a quiet force to her elegance. From start to end, you see her character undergo a transformation from a good natured trophy wife enslaved by the norms of high society to a passionate, free woman choosing life over all else. Swinton embodies that transformation effortlessly. She chooses wisely by trading outbursts for simmering emotions beneath that calm surface. Sure, there are good supporting performances. But the enterprise rests on Tilda Swinton; and she delivers the most natural performance of the year.

Swinton and Guadagnino combine their styles to give a richly textured drama with multiple layers. As you peel away layer by layer, you realise that this film is not just about infidelity. It is a comment on class, social standing and the claustrophobia that comes with it. This is what great cinema is about. It isn’t just about the words. It is about the visuals. It’s about giving that unique insight even in the most routine stories. And that is where I Am Love succeeds greatly. For the patient, this is emotionally one of the most rewarding cinematic experiences you will see this year.

Dabangg (2010): A Mad Mad Mad Masala Movie

2010-09-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

Many moons ago, I wrote about the great Indian masala movie jisme action hai, drama hai, comedy hai, romance hai or naach gaana bhi. It’s become a rare thing to see out and out masala films that also entertain. It’s true that the audience has become intelligent. But one must not forget, this is still the same Indian audience that has kept masala movie farmoola intact for over 4 decades. In today’s date, making masala films is hardly a safe thing like it used to be. However, with the confidence, the farmoola, the actors and the music, masala movies can still draw audiences, not only rural but also the so-called urban intelligentsia by the millions. This new Salman Khan starrer proves that, and how! Dabangg is not just a film, it is the best escapist cinematic experience of the year.

Welcome to Lalganj, Uttar Pradesh where politicians rule the people, dacoits loot them and it is hard to tell one from the other. In this godless world, we meet Robin Hood a.k.a. Chulbul Pandey (Salman Khan), an unorthodox, corrupt but kind and fearless cop loved by the masses and hated by the plunderers. He has to deal with his ailing but loving mother (Dimple Kapadia) and his difficult stepfather (Vinod Khanna) and stepbrother (Arbaaz Khan). Things take a turn for the worse when Pandeyji is caught in a tussle with local politician Chedi Singh (Sonu Sood). Meanwhile, he falls for the beautiful but stubborn Rajo (Sonakshi Sinha). Bullets fly, bombs explode. Mayhem reigns supreme!

The story is about as old as the Hindi film. However, what makes it work in a big way is the confident direction of Abhishek Singh Kashyap. He understands the limitations and possibilities of a masala movie remarkably well and with some inventive storytelling, a dash of madness and a strong narrative structure to drive the film from its powerful start to its explosive conclusion. He keeps things crisp and does not allow for the proceedings to slow down or get clunky for a single frame. The script writers (Kashyap and Dileep Shukla) pen some of the most memorable lines in recent cinematic history which made me laugh, whistle and clap rather loudly. But I wasn’t the only one in the theatre. Great dialogues are crucial to a masala movie and in that department, Dabangg does not disappoint one bit. The copious use of hinterland Hindi is also a welcome change. The editing is slick and adds considerably to the impact of several scenes. The action sequences are typically over the top but gripping nevertheless. The rustic look is well done thanks to great production design and costume work.

The music of the film is great with three-four terrific songs. “Tere Mast Mast Do Nain” is a beautiful love ballad from Rahat Fateh Ali Khan. The title song reminds me of the title song in Omkara. The additional item number (“Munni Badnaam Hui”) is easily the best item song in many years. It is superbly penned and filmed with Malaika Arora looking sizzling as always. The great thing about the film is that the songs are smartly placed so as to not hinter the narrative. Another ace is the background score with a Mexican style guitar theme recurring throughout that gives a Wild West feel to the entire film.

Although the performances are uniformly superb, the film belongs to one man and one alone: Salman Khan. Giving the performance of a lifetime, Salman manages to find the perfect balance between his action hero antics and his funny side. It has been literally over a decade since I have seen Salman Khan in such fine form. His dialogue delivery, his body language, dance and expressions are all spot on. If there is any actor in Hindi cinema who can still pull off masala, it is only him. Without him, the film would fall apart like a house of cards. It is hard to tell where the character ends and the actor begins. This is because the writers have tailored the character for Salman without, for once, compromising on the entertainment value of the film. Sonu Sood makes an extremely worthy villain and brings out the menacing side of his character as well his cheap, crass sides with equal finesse. Vinod Khanna and Arbaaz Khan are good. Sonakshi Sinha has what it takes to be a movie star and oozes confidence and style. Om Puri and Mahi Gill are unforunately wasted.

Overall, Dabangg is not for the pretentious or the self-proclaimed pseudo movie intelligentsia. For the rest, isse mazedaar, chatpati aur masaledaar film milni mushkil hai. It is escapist cinema at its best. Go treat yourself. Now.

Piranha 3D (2010): Gleeful, Glorious Violence!

2010-09-12T22:33:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, there comes a film so obnoxiously silly and deliriously entertaining that, despite all your pretentious claims to watching only the “good films”, you want to indulge in it for all it’s worth. Alexander Aja’s Piranha is one of those films. A mad dose of blood, gore and nudity, Piranha is one of those films that is very much aware of its silliness. However, it chooses to celebrate that in all its bloody glory rather than pretending to be different or intelligent. Its intelligence lies in that self-awareness. It more than makes up for its lack of originality by paying homage to some of the greatest films within the creature-horror subgenre, some superb cameos, its campy, B-movie style and a willingness to dish out blood and gore by the buckets.

The story: An underwater earthquake connects Lake Victoria to a subterranean ancient lake which has been a breeding ground for a particularly ferocious species of Piranha. This also happens to be the time when the Spring Break is in full session (and you know what that means). Instead of enjoying the time, 17 year old Jake (Steven McQueen) is forced to babysit his young brother and sister by his town cop bad ass mom (Elisabeth Shue) but bribes his way out of the task when he gets an opportunity by a film-maker (Jerry O’Connell) to be a location scout for the making of Wet Wet Girls (…or was it Wild Wild Girls? Anyhow, you get the picture). However, his fun is spoilt when his best friend and the girl he loves (Jessica Szohr) decides to join him and the crew on the boat. The stage is set. The babes are in the water. Let the bloodbath begin!

This is the first film of director Alexander Aja that I have seen. It makes it practically mandatory for me to see the rest of his repertoire. The film is horrifying in its gore and yet, hilarious in many places. The humour is clearly intentional and it’s hard not to laugh at Jerry O’Connell’s perverted porn film-maker act, the silly one liners and the ridiculousness of the violence. Having said that, this is one of the goriest films I have ever seen and you do need an iron stomach to digest it. But unlike movies like Hostel, the violence is too fast , less painful (and more humorous) here making it easier to watch. Nevertheless, if gore and nudity is your cup of tea, Piranha is as good as mainstream films get.

The cameos: the choice of Richard Dreyfuss in the opening scene (and the references to Jaws) is an inspired choice. The use of Eli Roth in the wet t-shirt contest (and his subsequent disposal) is absolutely brilliant. Christopher Lloyd’s inclusion as Mr. Goodman, the fish expert is another nice touch. And finally, you see Ashlynn Brooke and Gianna Michaels being fed to piranhas which is a delight to watch.

Much like The Heartbreaker, Piranha is as good as it gets within its genre. Embracing the formula, Piranha is gleefully campy, gloriously violent and deliriously fun. Its liberal dosage of gross humour, violence and nudity may not appeal to all. However, for adolescents, fans of the genre and people that can stomach the gore, this is going to be one hell of a ride.

The Heartbreaker (L'Arnacoeur) (2010)

2010-09-07T20:10:00.003-07:00

I have mentioned time and again in this blog that formulas exist for a reason: when used well, they work. For a romantic comedy, take a basic story, add to it attractive lead actors, keep the dialogues fresh and the humour in steady supply and little can go wrong. A perfect example of that is the new French film, The Heartbreaker (L'Arnacoeur). For English speaking people, don’t be put off by the subtitles. This is a great date movie which will keep you laughing throughout and leave you smiling for a long time after you have left the cinema hall.

The plot is simple: Alex (Romain Duris) has a unique job. He breaks up couples for a living. With a team that includes his sister and her husband, he is a professional at seducing women and convincing them to break up with their boyfriends and husbands. They have one rule though: they only break up unhappy couples. Facing financial difficulties, they decide to break that rule for a lucrative job requiring him to break up a seemingly happy couple, Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) and Englishman Jonathan (Andrew Lincoln) a few days before their wedding. Of course, things complicate when he falls for the girl and risks getting his own heart broken.

The Heartbreaker has a story that will remind you of popular romantic comedies ranging from old classics like It Happened One Night to Dirty Dancing (which it references heavily), There’s Something About Mary and many others. However, that goes in favour of the film rather than against it. It works despite no originality as such because of several reasons: first, it has two disarmingly charming leads in the form of Romain Duris and Vanessa Paradis. Duris is handsome, charismatic and has a great comic timing. Paradis is extremely graceful and yet, feisty and fun. She looks beautiful with her gowns, gap toothed smile and harsh but elegant features. Together, they work beautifully as a couple and their romance is developed carefully and allowed to simmer long enough for audiences to care.

The other reason for its working is its wicked sense of humour courtesy the sister (Julie Ferrier) and her husband (Francois Damiens). There are moments in the film that are pure gold and will leave you in splits. The script uses its 105 minutes well and keeps the proceedings light, peppy and fun. There isn’t a single dull, clunky moment in the film. The photography is spectacular and the sunny Monaco setting adds to the sheen of the film. The soundtrack (mostly English) is remarkably good ranging from Dusty Springfield to George Michael.

All in all, The Heartbreaker is as good as formulaic gets. It is old wine in new bottle, have no doubt. But this is fine French wine with a bold flavour that goes well with a date, and without. Treat yourself to this one.

We Are Family (2010)

2010-09-07T01:10:00.000-07:00

Stepmom is a good example for me of a mediocre script translated into a very good film simply because of great performances. Julia Roberts and Susan Sarandon gave such delicate and yet, powerful performances that it was difficult not to be impressed. Each glance, glare or tear was spot on and together (along with a very good supporting performance from Jena Malone), they rose above the clichéd script and gave a film with a good mix of humour and emotional resonance. When news came of an official Indian remake of the film, I realised that the film wouldn’t be that difficult to translate for the Indian screen at all. Hindi moviegoers (including myself) have always been, and to a great extent still are, suckers for good emotional dramas. As long as the premise could be sold, it shouldn’t have been difficult for someone like Karan Johar to make the film work for Indian audiences.

However, We Are Family is a mixed bag, at best. While comparisons to the original are inevitable, it adapts the premise well making some interesting changes in the characters and the narrative structure which help make the premise more acceptable to an Indian audience. Also, they help the film stand on its own vis-à-vis the original, in parts for the better but more so, for the worse.

The premise is as follows: Maya (Kajol) is a perfect mother to three children: Aleya (13 years), Ankush (10 years) and Anjali (5-6 years). Despite her divorce, she has managed to maintain cordial relations with her husband Aman (Arjun Rampal) for the sake of the children. Things complicate, however, when Aman attempts to introduce his long time girlfriend Shreya (Kareena Kapoor) to the family. Resentment and insecurities quickly crop up and Shreya struggles to befriend the children and gain acceptance from them. An unexpected turn of events forces all of them to confront bitter truths and find ways to make this new “family” work.

The movie is messy and although it works in individual sequences, it just does not come together as a whole. Sure, there are improvements over the original. The character of the husband is far well developed here unlike the original where the man (played by Ed Harris) was completely upstaged by the women. However, there are many flaws as well. The culprit here is the script which is quite a few notches below even the original. The dialogues are absolutely uninspired and have none of the emotional resonance that the original did. The character development, especially of the teenage daughter is extremely flawed. In an attempt to be different from the original, the writer makes a mess of it in more than one place. In fact, the film does best when it’s literally translating the original like the final dialogue between the mothers or the gift exchange in the end. But such moments are few and far between and as a whole, it just doesn’t have even half the emotional impact such a story could have had. The direction by Siddharth Malhortra is good for the most part. It’s the script here that lets him down.

The only reason perhaps to recommend this film at all is the performances. Both Kajol and Kareena are perfectly cast as the mom and the stepmom. Kareena is perfect as the feisty, outgoing and independent career women. She looks less like a supermodel and more like a character which is refreshing. Kajol is even better taking to the role of the responsible, caring but insecure mother like fish to the sea. She proves that, irrespective of age, beauty or any other factor, she is arguably the most talented mainstream actress we have today. She emotes effortlessly and manages to leave me teary eyed despite the banal lines. Arjun Rampal demonstrates his growth as a dependable actor since Rock On by giving a very mature performance. Here, he isn’t given the lines but manages to make his presence felt through his expressions. He looks like an ex husband, a father and a weary man caught in an unusual situation. The younger children are extremely sweet and adorable but Aanchal Munjal as the teenage daughter is no Jena Malone and manages to annoy a lot more than endear.

On the whole, We Are Family is a disappointing fare thanks to a weak script. and bad dialogues. Kajol, Kareena and Arjun Rampal deserve better than this considering the effort they have put in. So do I for the $8 I spent on the ticket. Do yourself a favour, rent Stepmom instead.

Partition & Identity: 3 Films, 3 Perspectives

2010-08-24T04:15:00.000-07:00

The Partition (more appropriately, the Creation) of India and Pakistan has caught the imagination of many people on both sides of the borders over the last 6 decades in both, the literary and the cinematic circles. Authors and poets like Khushwant Singh, Kartar Singh Duggal and Amrita Pritam have, through their writings, created an enduring image of the partition that will perhaps serve future generations better than many historical accounts. Movies on the partition, on the other hand, have been a mixed bag. Most movies tend to focus on the massacres, get buried under clichés or worse, try to pin the blame on one group or the other. However, few have sought to rationalise the experiences and its effects. As I recently saw some movies on the issue, to my mind, there are three great films I found that offer three very different perspectives of the time and its effects.

The first is Deepa Mehta’s Earth. Based on the novel by Bapsi Sidhwa, the film provides the most immediate experiences of the Partition. Seen through the innocent eyes of Lenny, a young Parsi girl living in Lahore in 1947, it is a disturbing tale about personal transformation and the choices people make in the face of rapidly changing social settings. It’s unique in that, while it looks at 1947 in the most direct way, looking at the brutalities committed, it also examines some themes which have been largely ignored by film makers: the transforming personal relationships between the people of different religious groups, the experiences of fringe minorities like Parsis who were too few to have an opinion and were forced to be silent spectators of the atrocities. Unrelenting in its depiction of violence, the scene when the Ice Candy Man (Aamir Khan) finds the massacred remains of his sisters on the train from Amritsar is perhaps the most harrowing moment of the film. Embellished with superlative performances (including, without a doubt, Aamir Khan’s best), Earth works beautifully in conveying its universal themes as it chooses to look at the events through the innocent eyes of Lenny. It lays bare that the violence that ensued was not an assertion of identity, but of inhumanity. Deepa Mehta does well by likening the bloodlust of the masses to the lust that the ice-candy man has for Lenny’s Hindu maid. There really is not much of a difference. All this and more make Earth a deeply unsettling film about the cracks that were formed by the Partition and the price a civilisation paid, and as will be seen, is still paying for it.

If Earth (and most other Partition themed movies) speak about the violence that people on both sides faced, Garm Hava is perhaps the only film that shows a different side of the Partition. All films on the Partition take the exodus itself as a given; that people of different religious communities actually wanted to go to “their land”. However, what it fails to explain is what prompted the exodus, not just in Amritsar which was close to the border, but also far off areas like Uttar Pradesh, Bengal and others. Garm Hava is perhaps the only film about the partition that does a magnificent job of providing an answer.

Written by Kaifi Azmi, Garm Hava (Scorching Winds) tells the story of Salim Mirza (Balraj Sahani in the performance of a lifetime) and his family in Agra in the immediate aftermath of the Partition. Gandhi has been killed and violence has ebbed. Nevertheless, the mass exodus of Muslims from India continues. In this tense climate, Salim Mirza runs a shoe factory with his elder son while his elder brother Halim is a politician. The movie looks at the discrimination that Muslims faced during the days. More than the violence, it was the economic oppression and deprivation forced many Muslims to leave their homes and migrate to Pakistan. It also shows the problems that the government’s policies for accommodating migrants created for the Muslims living in the country. As Mirza struggles to keep his factory solvent and stands to lose his house after his brother’s migration, you see a whole different aspect of the Partition; one where the politico-economic climate made it impossible for Muslims to live in India. And as Mirza loses his family and friends one after the other in the migration, it takes a toll on the human relationships; his relationship with his elder son, his daughter’s relationship with her beau and others. It’s when you sit back and see the effects of these changes on the whole, that a darker, sadder, more painful and (I think) accurate picture of the Partition emerges. As a stoic old man, Salim Mirza’s character represents, I believe, the struggle of many Muslims to assert or even find their identity in post-independence India. For these reasons, I think that Garm Hava is the finest film on the Partition that we have made; one that tries to understand and make us understand the events that led to one of the biggest migrations in the history of mankind.

The third film I want to talk about is of a slightly different kind. One may even find the choice odd considering the period it is set in. The film is Khamosh Pani (Silent Waters), a film set in a village in Punjab in 1979 at a time when Pakistan saw a military coup and General Zia ul-Haq came to occupy the seat of power. It tells the story of the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan as seen through the eyes of Ayesha (Kirron Kher), loved by all in her quaint little village, who sees that transformation in her son. At the same time, a Sikh man from India comes on pilgrimage to the village looking for his sister, Veero, who was left behind in 1947 leading to bitter revelations and forcing Ayesha to face the fast changing realities and the questions to her sense of identity and belonging. There are two important things that the film demonstrates: one is the issue of the treatment of women during the partition, not only by the people of a different religious community but also by their own families. Looking at the events from a gendered perspective, it shows that women were perhaps, the single-most oppressed group and not any religious community. In the name of honour and tradition, women faced persecution from all sides and were the worst victims of the Partition. Moreover, in the subcontinent, the woman was (and unfortunately, to a great extent, still is) defined by the men in her life; her father, brothers, husband and sons. When these people start to question her actions, her identity, her pain is beautifully encapsulated by director Sabiha Sumar in her realisation of the character of Ayesha.

Secondly, and perhaps on a more macro scale, Khamosh Pani shows the repercussions of the Partition. It beautifully shows on celluloid how it was a contradiction of sorts to try and create a secular Pakistan. The rationale for the Partition was religion and the cultural differences resulting from it. The real reason of course was political power and greed. Once those motives were served, leaders sought to create a modern, secular state out of Pakistan. However, the real reason could not be forgotten. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before someone like General Zia would play the religion card once again to consolidate his power. In showing this, director Sabiha Sumar makes it clear that the Partition is hardly an event left for historians to consider and debate about. The spectre of the Partition and what it stood for continues to haunt us to date.

This has become a rather long post. In the end, all I can say is that these three films are very different from each, both in terms of tone as well as approach towards the Partition. They offer three distinct perspectives of the same realities. I think, of the movies on the Partition, these are the three best that I have seen and together, captures the widest range of experiences of the Partition on celluloid. They speak of the many mistakes that were (and still often are) committed. If we do not learn from this history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Don't You Forget About Me: John Hughes (1950-2009)

2010-08-19T14:04:00.000-07:00

It has been over a year since John Hughes died. He was one of my favourite directors of all time. Sure, he did a lot of bad films. But his five good films, to me, were so damn good that he is one of my favourites anyway. For the longest time, I was trying to write a post about John Hughes but never could write something I thought to be good enough. I referred to his work on this blog though here and here but could never complete a full post discussing his work. There are many failed attempts tucked away on this laptop that will remain there till this hard disk crashes or this laptop goes. But, nevertheless, as I saw the documentary Don’t You Forget About Me, a tribute to John Hughes and an account of four filmmakers to get an interview with John Hughes, I decided to take another stab at writing a post. The result is this; let’s see if this one has an end.

John Hughes has been described as the “philosopher of adolescents” and very rightly so. No filmmaker has captured teenage experiences on camera as effectively as John Hughes did. Also, no one took these experiences as seriously as he did or made it such an integral part of their life’s work. Consequently, no one has succeeded in representing them on film as well as he has. In an age of Twihards, Friedberg and Seltzer movies and Size 0 prom queens, the work of John Hughes shines bright still, and here’s why.

Most people see Hughes’ work as defining the teenage experience in the 1980s. Sure, that is true. However, if we scratch the surface, the themes are universal, not only across time but also place. Middle class and upwards, teenagers across geographical and cultural boundaries find themselves relating to his films. I used to be one of them. In fact, in some ways, I still am. I mean, John Hughes went to high school himself in the 1960s, a very different time from the 80s. Yet, he focused on the themes, the experiences and these could be transposed to just about any time. Hence, the enduring appeal of his work. Unlike most 80s movies, his films have aged remarkably well for the most part. Through his films, he showed the bittersweet experiences of teenage years; from the friends, the joy, the hopes and dreams to the peer and parental pressure, the insecurities, the angst and the painful realities. And he did this with a light hand, but without compromising on the honesty. This is, I think, the prime reason why I believe The Breakfast Club is, hands down, the greatest teen film of all time. Not American Graffiti and certainly not Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

His movies captured the exuberance of teenagers as well as the confusion. His depiction, though laced with humour, had a tinge of melancholy that made us think when we laughed at say, Cameron in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. His characters, as well as the actors playing them, were imperfect and he celebrated those imperfections and used them well. Even his most conventional romantic comedies were something more than the superfluous junk churned out today at an alarming rate. They were not stories about the most beautiful girl in the world with a perfect life and personality being unable to Mr. Right. Some Kind of Wonderful was about angst, peer pressure and friendships along with being a love triangle. Pretty in Pink explored the themes of individuality, beauty and class differences despite coming closest of all Hughes’ work to a conventional romantic comedy. Hughes’ greatest strength lay in the details in depicting these themes and his unique yet believable characters.

Today, films about teens or ones targeting teens are either American Pie spin offs, special effects extravaganzas, Twilight adaptations or shockingly shallow chick flicks (they don’t even deserve to be called romantic comedies). Occasionally, stories about real teenagers do show up in films like Rocket Science and Juno. However, these are few and far between. In these times where opening weekends, marketing and promotion are more important than characters and scripts, one longs for one of Hughes’ quirky characters to return to the screen. It could be Cameron from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off; or Allison or Bender from The Breakfast Club; or Ducky in Pretty in Pink. These are all from Hughes’ mind; maybe even his own life. But what is remarkable is that a bit of that quirkiness exists in so many of us and Hughes’ was able to capture its essence and put it on the screen for us. Even today, when all through high school and college, people are stereotyped into categories, Hughes’ work is a reminder that there is a little bit of everyone of these stereotypes in each one of us and that we are all bound by our common experiences of hopes and drems; fears and insecurities.

This was meant to be a movie review for the documentary, Don’t You Forget About Me. However, it didn’t quite make it there, did it? *sigh* It is a good film that succeeds in one of its two goals and that is paying a tribute to Hughes’ contribution. It features interviews from people who worked with Hughes as well the people who reviewed his work or drew inspiration from him. I would recommend it for fans of Hughes’ work and even those familiar with it. However, perhaps the best tribute was paid to Hughes this (now) highly popular blog post.

There will never be another Hughes. There probably also will never be a film that will best The Breakfast Club. That is Hughes’ cinematic and cultural contribution. Don’t you forget about him.

P.S.: I guess I reached the end of this post after all. Still not sure if it's good enough though.
P.P.S.: For those reading this post and unacquainted with Hughes’ work, rent and watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Some Kind of Wonderful and Sixteen Candles. Now!

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2009)

2010-08-13T00:49:00.000-07:00

Great thrillers are such a rare phenomenon. Ones which don't use science fiction or the supernatural are even rarer. These are films that horrify you simply by providing a glimpse of the dark side of human nature; play with you psychologically and keep you guessing till the very end. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one such film. It blends a classic mystery with a distinct visual style and some horrific violence resulting in the best and most unsettling thriller I have seen in many years.

The story is about Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), an investigative reporter who faces a jail sentence after losing a libel suit to a major industrial tycoon. With 6 months to go before he has to serve his sentence, he receives a call from the lawyer of a corporate giant, Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) for a meeting. Vanger offers him a handsome fee to conduct one final investigation into the 40 year old murder of his niece Hariet Vanger (Julia Sporre). Unbeknown to him, his actions are being watched by a professional hacker Lisbeth (Noomie Rapace), a highly enigmatic girl with heavy tattooing and many piercings with a dark past filled with acts of bizarre violence. She is on probation for a crime herself and has a guardian (Peter Andersson) with a penchant for sexual deviance. What starts out as a dead end investigation soon develops into a highly dangerous situation, threatening to expose old, but explosive secrets of the Vanger family. And the highly dysfunctional Vanger family likes to keep its secrets buried.

The story is rich in detail. Although conventional in some ways, the screenplay is tight, maintains the tension throughout and successfully holds the audience's attention its sprawling 152 minute run time. It takes its time to establish the settings and the characters. In this process, it becomes a painful, horrific depiction of the twisted nature of the human mind, though not a deep psychological study of it. The real strength of the film lies in its characterization. The movie takes its time to establish its principal characters and especially in Lisbeth, gives us the most interesting movie character in years. It is this character which elevates the film to dizzying heights and more importantly, transcends it. There is so much potential in this character that she alone is enough to make me watch the remainder of the trilogy. Noomi Rapace plays the character to perfection finding the right mix of feminine allure, hostility, pain, anger, melancholy and mystery. It is a difficult character and Rapace does complete justice to it. In every step of the way, she is complimented by an excellent Michael Nyqvist as the diffident journalist with complications of his own.

In addition to the characterization, it is the production style of the film that struck me the most. The visuals of Sweden with its frost and snow is soaked in dread, melancholy and a sense of impending doom. With its equally frosty supporting characters, the visual style helps set the tone for the film. The background score is atmospheric and effective in creating that sense of horror and tension. The scenes of violence, rape, bondage are thoroughly harrowing in their relentlessness. The flashback sequences for Lisbeth left me thoroughly mind-fucked, pardon the expression. The rape scene is perhaps the most disturbing I have seen since the rape scene in Irreversible. Despite the (relatively) limited nudity, the brutality of these moments will truly make you squirm in your seat.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a terrific adult thriller. It is sombre, moody and has moments of incredible brutality. It is also has a tight story that keeps you guessing till the very end despite employing all the conventions in the book. But above all, it has a terrific central character who you will not forget easily, even long after you have left that dark cinema hall. Treat yourself to this one. You will be doing yourself a favour. Trust me.

P.S.: A Hollywood remake of the film is in the making. David Fincher is set to direct and Daniel Craig will play the role of Blomkvist. I, for the life of me, cannot imagine anyone playing the role of Lisbeth as well as needed. The only close choices that come to mind are Kristen Stewart and Carey Mulligan. What do you think?

Aisha (2010)

2010-08-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Greetings from Singapore.

Apologies for the radio silence for the last three weeks. After Udaan, there seemed to be no new movie, Hindi or English that seemed worthy of my time or yours. But after nearly 3 weeks of self-imposed cinematic exile, I couldn't take it anymore and decided to spend $11 at the only theatre (incidentally also half-way across the city) playing Aisha and here's what I thought:

Time and again, I have often said, both on this blog and in person that for a film, being formulaic is not a fault by itself. Formulas exist for a reason: when used well with the right ingredients, they work. If you have a conventional romantic comedy to make, there is a basic plot outline you need to follow. To execute it, there are certain obligatory scenes that you need to put in to make the story reach its conclusion logically. There must be a pair of charming lead actors who not only work individually but also as a screen couple. Pepper the remainder of the film with good music (if in Hindi) and some genuine, fresh, light, breezy moments; infuse a little wit and humour in the rest et voila! You have a fairly safe formula film. When done well, this can result in a Notting Hill, When Harry Met Sally, Jab We Met and others. However, tampering with this formula unnecessarily can dilute the impact and sink the film faster than the Titanic. That is the problem with Aisha.

Aisha finds a great formula by drawing inspiration primarily from Jane Austen's Emma. Welcome to the lives of people in upper class Delhi, which is striking in its similarities with the 19th century English village. A small community of people where everyone knows each other and live a classy (read: borderline pretentious) lifestyle with their own a set of social rules. In this small cocoon, we meet Aisha (Sonam Kapoor) who considers herself to be an expert matchmaker. In her life are her father, her best friend Pinky (Ira Dubey), a potential love interest Dhruv (Arunoday Singh) and her new matchmaking "project" Shefali (Amrita Puri) who she believes will be a perfect match for Randhir (Cyrus) the archetypal Punjabi Delhiite. Also, in her life is Arjun (Abhay Deol), an investment banker and friend who thinks she should mind her own business and stop meddling around with others'. As Aisha tries to bring Shefali and Randhir together, things complicate, chaos ensues and disaster looms.

Aisha is formulaic and it embraces that fact quite whole-heartedly. It gets some parts of the formula right. It had the basic plot points in place. Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol are terrific actors with great chemistry and even better lines. There is good humour in places and a very good supporting cast that often delivers laughs even on the dullest lines. Cyrus as the typical Delhi boy with his Punjabi English and his lack of style is hilarious, particularly in the hotel scene. Amrita Puri is brilliant as the naive girl from Bahadurgarh who is suddenly thrown into the web of upper class Delhi and taught the rules of the game by Aisha. For Ira Dubey, acting is a genetic gift which runs in her family. She does best with sarcasm and also manages to deliver in the more emotional sequences.

However, there are too many things Aisha gets wrong. It digresses from the obligatory scenes to add unnecessarily plot points. The whole Dhruv-Shefali track looks fake, unnecessary and forced. It seems to have been added only to add to the (otherwise short) runtime. Aisha comes off as annoying, dumb and silly in these portions, a disaster for a film titled after that character. The story does come back on track. Unfortunately, by then it is a little too late. Also, certain plot points like the Randhir-Pinky track and the characters of Aarti (Lisa Haydon), Arjun's colleague from New York and potential love interest are just not developed at all. The writers could have spent the precious runtime there. The writing is also clunky and dull in important places and that spark, so essential for a romantic comedy, is clearly missing. However, the worst thing is that the writers waste time chasing supporting characters while giving precious little time to develop the romance between the leads. While both Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol make the most of the few real scenes between them and try hard to create magical romance, the writing lets them down. That is unforgivable.

Ultimately, Aisha could have been not only a good formulaic romance, but a great one much like movies I mentioned at the beginning of this review. It had some really good performances, a fantastic foot tapping score by Amit Trivedi and excellent production values. Unfortunately, the half-baked writing in key portions and the unnecessary plot digressions create a mess out of which the film gets out of, but barely just and takes too much of our time doing it. An average film and consequently, a disappointment.

Udaan (2010)

2010-07-19T01:25:00.000-07:00

A few months back, I reviewed a film, The 400 Blows about a boy who is driven to a life of petty crime resulting from parental and societal neglect. As I watched Udaan yesterday, I couldn't help but see the striking thematic similarities between the two films. Directed by Vikramaditya Motwane who struggled for 4 years to receive funding to make the film, Udaan is a poignant, powerful and ultimately inspiring slice-of-life film which will leave you touched and uplifted.

Expelled from boarding school for disciplinary issues, Rohan (Rajat Barmecha) comes home to Jamshedpur after 8 years to his father Bhairav Singh (Ronit Roy), a small steel manufacturer. He finds out that after his mother's death, his father remarried and he now has a 6 year old brother Arjun (Aayan Barodia) from the failed marriage. Rohan dreams of being a writer but his father wants him to study engineering and work at the steel plant. His father is a tyrant who insists on being referred to as "Sir" and is never satisfied no matter how much Rohan tries to win his approval. In such a situation, he only finds solace in his caring uncle (Ram Kapoor). With no solution in sight, he starts rebelling in an increasingly serious manner till things cross a limit leading to bitter confrontations.

Sure, the plot is formulaic and predictable. However, formulas exist for a reason; when used correctly, they work with audiences. Udaan is an excellent example of that. It's themes of coming of age, struggles with family, following your dreams are universal. It weaves these into a simple story and puts it on paper and later, on the reels so well that it is hard not to like the film. It is gritty and effective with strong emotional undercurrents and tensions that are disturbing because I could immediately relate to them. The film shatters the cinematic myths about the typical Indian families. It portrays teen angst, compromises and conflicts extremely well. In its realism, it gives us characters which we recognise immediately and care for. The music, production scale etc. is kept to a minimum to maintain that sense of realism and drama. The poetry written for Rohan is exceptionally good and appropriately illustrates his hopes, aspirations, fears and dreams.

Each of the characters are sketched with the aim of making them as real as possible. In Rohan, we see a teenager full of hope and life. He is bursting with talent as a writer and is struggling to keep that dream alive under his father's tyrannical regime. Bhairav Singh is impossible to like. Nevertheless, the character is beautifully layered and hence, real. The writers ensure that we know where he is coming from to understand his behaviour. The scene prior to the intermission is crucial for achieving this and that is, I believe the best scene of the film, both in terms of writing and direction. Arjun is adorable as child who is innocent and is too young to understand just how awful his father really is. His relationship with his half-brother is also organically developed with moments straight out of life. It is in developing these characters and their relationships with each other that the success of the film truly lies.

A film like Udaan would be nowhere as effective if it weren't for the superlative performances. Rajat Barmecha is stunning as Rohan. His silent stares and quiet tears convey a great deal. Aayan Barodia is also unbelievably adorable as Arjun and gets his expressions spot on. Ram Kapoor is perfect as the jolly and affectionate uncle trying to hold his brother's family together. The actors playing Rohan's friends, both at boarding school and college are fantastic and provide the much needed humour both, for Rohan and the audience. However, the film belongs to one man and that is Ronit Roy. For a film like Udaan, it is imperative that we really loathe the antagonist and Roy ensures that. Breaking out of his saas-bahu staple, he gives a terrific performance as the overbearing, difficult and tyrannical father who is oblivious to what his children need. He gives what is probably the best supporting performance I have seen this year so far.

Ultimately, Udaan is a prime example in the changing nature of Hindi cinema. It is a comment on today's society and its parents. It is a very poignant coming of age film. The sequence where Rohan runs from his father is every bit as effective as the final scene in The 400 Blows. It is an important story that needs to be told. Stories like these can be found even today in several places; from small towns to big cities. Many boys and girls like Rohan are out there struggling to break out of their claustrophobic realities and deal with domestic abuse and violence on a daily basis. This film speaks for them. That alone makes the film worthy of a recommendation. That it does that job well makes this an unmissable cinematic experience.